Slashdot Mirror


Cable Lobbyist Tom Wheeler Confirmed As New FCC Chief

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Senate confirmed Tuesday the nomination of a new chairman to the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler is a former investor and head of telecommunications industry groups. President Barack Obama said, when announcing Wheeler as his choice in May, that 'for more than 30 years, Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives.'"

242 comments

  1. thank you sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    may i have another?

    1. Re:thank you sir by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, your next one will be delivered sometime between 2-8PM next Wednesday, please be at your house that entire time.

    2. Re:thank you sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may i have another?

      Obummer brings us more "hope and change". Though you'll likely have little change left in your pockets when he's done.

      In b4 some doofus liberal tries to claim I voted for Retard W. Bush, am a conservatard or that I vote Rethuglican.

    3. Re:thank you sir by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Yes, your next one will be delivered sometime between 2AM - 8PM next Wednesday, please be at your house that entire time.

      FTFY.

    4. Re:thank you sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the campaign "contribution" bill was for this?

  2. Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The 'bundle' will be with us for a long, long time.

    1. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you like your cable plan, you can keep your cable plan.

    2. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Strange, I just got a letter from my provider saying my current plan doesn't meet Federal minimum requirements and they can't legally offer it anymore...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just got a letter saying that I have to pay a fee for not subscribing to a cable television plan...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the Federal Government could never levy a fine for simply NOT signing up for a particular privately-offered service, that's unconstitutional!

    5. Re: Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I got a letter saying they're adding x new channels I won' t watch,but I'm expected to pay for, also they're capping my bandwidth because I'm using too much downloading media I do want.

    6. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Every time you say you don't believe the fine is really a tax, a fairy dies.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile at WBC:

      "Fines are not a tax....fines are not a tax....fines are not a tax..."

    8. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. That right there is why "Funny" posts deserve karma too.

    9. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agree. A fine is not a tax.

    10. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by thaylin · · Score: 1
      Fines are something you have to pay for not complying with laws, taxes are compulsory contributions to state revenue.. So based on those definitions which is it, a fine or a tax?

      For example is the money you pay a jurisdiction for speeding a fine or a tax?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    11. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, it's the go-fast tax. Everybody knows that.

    12. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fines are in response to your actions, or lack thereof. If you do something that is prohibited (or refuse to do something that is required) by law, then you are fined for noncompliance with the law. A speeding ticket is a fine. You were doing something prohibited, and you are fined for it. Refusing to sign up for a health plan draws a fine as well, since you are refusing to comply with the law, and a monetary penalty is assessed against you for that.

      Taxes are a government request for you to just hand over the cash. They require no justification with regard to your actions. You pay X% of your income above a certain threshold every year to the government. Why? Because they said so. Is it triggered by earning money? No, if you are given money or if you receive nothing, you're still required to file your taxes, even just to tell the government that you're not paying them anything this year.

      tl;dr version - Fines are punishment for violations of the law. Taxes are taken without any associated justifying action.

    13. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the purpose of passing the law through congress, it's a fine.
      For the purpose of passing it through SCOTUS, it's a tax.

    14. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So based on those definitions which is it, a fine or a tax?

      A tax.

      While not a car analogy, the interest that I pay on my home loan factors into how much tax I owe at the end of the year, such that I pay a lower rate than if I had no home loan. But no matter how much you might yell and scream otherwise, that does not translate into punishing people who do not have a home loan.

    15. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are taken without any associated justifying action.

      Wrong. Gas taxes and property taxes, for example, are levied for specific purposes.

    16. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as in the case of traffic tickets, if the law exists solely for the purpose of generating non-compliance that may be fined for the sake of state revenue, isn't that a tax in everything but name? So let's get back to the core issue here, which is the corruption that enables things like this.

    17. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by nolife · · Score: 1

      You laugh, my Comcast bill for internet only just this month went from $49 to $64 for that exact reason. I cancelled Comcast cable about 3 years ago. I guess they just figured that out.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    18. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The 'bundle' will be with us for a long, long time.

      "Unbundling" is happening, and quickly. Your cable company isn't going to offer it anytime soon, but your cable company is becoming irrelevant (or at best, becoming a pure ISP). Right now you can pick from an array of channels (streaming providers), and pay them independently. Some provide monthly pricing to their entire catalog, and some provide pricing based on the show or even episode level. You can't get more unbundled than that. It's pure disruption from the bottom and it's lovely.

    19. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by thaylin · · Score: 1

      No, the interest you pay is not taxed, it is counted as a dediction, or in the case of mcc a credit towards your tax. You dont pay extra because of that, you get a rebate... Those are not even close to being analogies.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    20. Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Neither speeding tickets or the ACA law exists soley for the purpose of generating non-compliance so I am not sure your point.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  3. Dare to Hope by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dare to Hope; Prepare to be Disappointed.

    1. Re:Dare to Hope by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Dare to be cynical; prepare for pleasant surprises.

    2. Re:Dare to Hope by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dare to be cynical; prepare to get exactly what you expected.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Dare to Hope by zidium · · Score: 2

      What pleasant surprises have you gotten during Obama's administration? Or heck, even Bush's?!

      There. That's an almost-14 year period to choose from. List!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    4. Re:Dare to Hope by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      No third world war.

      I think your problem is that you didn't dare to be cynical enough.

    5. Re:Dare to Hope by zidium · · Score: 1

      Nah, I still think there's PLENTY of time for a 3rd world war.

      IN FACT, the cynical me says they haven't started it yet JUST so they can 1) make more weapons, 2) let more countries (*cough* Iran *cough* NKorea) develop even more nukes, and 3) draw even more countries into the fray.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    6. Re:Dare to Hope by zidium · · Score: 1

      OH and I bet that in the 22nd Century, they'll teach that World War 3 started with the Twin Towers being knocked down and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan -> Iraq -> Iran (unofficial) -> Pakistan -> Sudan -> Syria -> on and on around we go.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    7. Re:Dare to Hope by ApplePy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey now... we were promised transparency by the Precedent, and we got it! All the corruption is completely out in the open now!

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    8. Re:Dare to Hope by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I like icebergs, they're like floating snow cones.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    9. Re:Dare to Hope by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Hey now... we were promised transparency by the Precedent, and we got it! All the corruption is completely out in the open now!

      That's unprecedented.

    10. Re:Dare to Hope by Megane · · Score: 2

      Huh? But we've had plenty of war in the third world! Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria...

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:Dare to Hope by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Are you being cynical about the miserably positive result of "no world war"?

      That's the spirit!

      I see lots of pleasant surprises in your future!

      May you be able to see the cynical twist in all of them.

    12. Re:Dare to Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dare to be cynical; prepare for surprise buttsecks.

    13. Re:Dare to Hope by Megane · · Score: 1

      Woosh. You're not noticing that it can be parsed as ((third world) war)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    14. Re:Dare to Hope by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I think you're onto something there actually. After the NSA revelations and too big to fail, the government may have realized "Hey, these morons literally do not care what we do, why hide it?"

      At what point does it stop being corruption and start being "Stupid shit that we let happen?" I mean, if someone says "I'm going to drive off in your car and not give it back, that cool?" and you're like "Meh," that's not really stealing your car. If Obama says "I'm going to let these industries make their own rules," and we say "Oh, well they have experience, so I guess that makes sense," that's probably not something you could quite call corruption.

    15. Re:Dare to Hope by suutar · · Score: 1

      It would not surprise me in the least if that is considered to be the initial trigger for a sequence of conflicts culminating in what gets called World War 3. Of course, it would be equally unsurprising for it to be "twin towers knocked down; USA gets paranoid; USA surveillance erodes trust; opposition to X is fragmented; kaboom."

    16. Re:Dare to Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you add up the number of people killed in the WORLD - US by the mighty US War machine since illegal invasion of Afghanistan it has been a World War. World War seems to the label applied only when mostly white Christians in mostly "west" die but that is just the way "west" newspeaks to its children.

    17. Re:Dare to Hope by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Dare to point out that being cynical isn't particularly daring; prepare to make good on all those promises of moving to Canada. (It's worth it! We don't have this, for example.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    18. Re:Dare to Hope by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      FYI, yes, I did notice that; which is the basis of my following joke, that I'll now explain.

      1 - I said: "Be cynical, pleasant surprises". (attention, this is both the first joke and the root of the next one)
      2 - "what pleasant surprises brought the last POTUS?"
      3 - "no [third world war]" (funny because more cynical)
      4 - "but there was [third world] war" (funny because word play)
      5 - "cynical master!" (funny because acknowledges/turns (4) into a (funny because even more cynical)

    19. Re:Dare to Hope by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      Even better, if there is a third world war, you wouldn't be around to see the end of it. So no negative outcomes, only positives out of that attitude.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
  4. FCC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Federal Cable Conflict of interest.

    Sounds about right. Ugh, get ready for new price-gouging, option-limiting legislation.

  5. Regulatory capture by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikipedia:

    Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

    Federal Communications Commission

    Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale Law School has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries' leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of "corporate socialism" that serves to "regressively tax consumers, impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, stifle innovation, and diminish consumer choice". The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public.

    Michael K. Powell, who served on the FCC for eight years and was chairman for four, was appointed president and chief executive officer of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a lobby group. As of April 25, 2011, he will be the chief lobbyist and the industry's liaison with Congress, the White House, the FCC and other federal agencies. Meredith Attwell Baker was one of the FCC commissioners who approved a controversial merger between NBC Universal and Comcast. Four months later, she announced her resignation from the FCC to join Comcast's Washington, D.C. lobbying office. Legally, she is prevented from lobbying anyone at the FCC for two years and an agreement made by Comcast with the FCC as a condition of approving the merger will ban her from lobbying any executive branch agency for life. Nonetheless, Craig Aaron, of Free Press, who opposed the merger, complained that "the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows" and said public policy would continue to suffer from the "continuously revolving door at the FCC".

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why a lot of people say it's better to do government operations as close to the people as possible. That is, if it can be done at a city level, do it at a city level. If it can be done at a state level, do it at a state level. Only a few things should be done at the national level.

      The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted (or rather, if some town gets corrupted, it doesn't affect people outside that town).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Regulatory capture by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And you think regulating radio interference could be done at a state level without massive consequences?

    3. Re:Regulatory capture by P-niiice · · Score: 2

      You'd have a better chance doing it centrally. Problem is, this central agency is already bought and paid for.

    4. Re:Regulatory capture by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      This is why a lot of people say it's better to do government operations as close to the people as possible. That is, if it can be done at a city level, do it at a city level. If it can be done at a state level, do it at a state level. Only a few things should be done at the national level.

      The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted (or rather, if some town gets corrupted, it doesn't affect people outside that town).

      That's great in theory, but in practice it often doesn't work that way. Local and state governments are often far more corrupt than the federal government. Illiinois has had several of its former governors go to jail, and I don't really need to comment on the corruption Chicago is known for. What is less well known is the rampant corruption in places like Normal, IL, East St. Louis, IL, etc. Other states have similar issues, some far worse than Illinois and Chicago, and many if not most far worse than the corruption we see at the federal level (though I admint, with the NSA surveillance state, FCC corporatist revolving door, and a supreme court acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of our corporate masters, this may be changing).

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    5. Re:Regulatory capture by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Regulatory capture", what a nice sounding name for Graft: ", a form of political corruption, is the unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain."

      I guess that is what you have to call corruption and graft now it is so common/the norm amongst our ruling elites. Brings new meaning to the phrase "politically correct"...

    6. Re:Regulatory capture by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's the most sure-fire way to make sure that the outcomes of elections don't really matter.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Please re-read the last sentence

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 2

      And you think regulating radio interference could be done at a state level without massive consequences?

      I can't speak for the earlier poster, but standards could be set at the federal level and regulated at state level. So yes, I do think that could be done.

      I don't see a lot of issues from the current approach aside from regulation of rather pointless things like naughty words and the aforementioned regulatory capture.

    9. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is, this central agency is already bought and paid for.

      At risk of pointing out the obvious, that's a good part of why you don't have a chance of doing it centrally.

      You think it sounds easier centrally, because you think, "If I were in charge, we could........." but you are not in charge, and good luck getting a non-corrupt person in charge and keeping him there. Do you REALLY think you have a chance of getting a less-corrupt president than Obama in the next election?

      However, if your goal is to get a less-corrupt mayor......that is a lot more achievable for someone like you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The FCC we have now isn't very good, so I'm open to exploring alternatives.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as going totally off topic is the new fad on /.,
      Let's start questioning: "Is Greed is destroying the only inhabitable place in the known Multiverse?" and the simultaneous question, "wasn't that Hitler's argument?"
      What I mean, the dude kinda convinced an entire nation to make first strikes against seemingly innocuous nations, RIGHT after they just had their asses handed to them in WW1.
      How the fuck does that even happen without a rock solid argument? keel ze juuz isn't even a fucking argument at all, it's an impulse.
      Milgram this, Ashe that, blah blah blah, you are going to fucking die from starvation from food crop failure from chaotic atmosphere.
      When will people declare they've had enough of this masturbatory bullshit from the world's decision makers?
      When seven billion people are doing whatever they consider necessary to not starve to death? There simply wouldn't be a civilization existing to "save civilization" at that point.

    12. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizen, "regulatory capture" is the new politically correct way of naming graft - to a politicians face at least.

    13. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People say it, but it's a bad idea. Corruption goes UP the nearer you go to local levels. It's much easier to hide corruption when there are fewer eyes and oversight involved.

      It's also trivial for powerful outside interests to wield influence if power is more local. Divide and conquer. You don't need to buy the state when you can simply buy Bigtown and Cityville and control a majority of the influence.

    14. Re:Regulatory capture by P-niiice · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Central agencies do stuff all over the planet, and do them well, unless you contention is that Americans are inherently less honest. If corruption is a problem, the risk of corruption doesn't change, but now you have companies having to do 50 times to work in order to comply. It makes no sense to do it otherwise.

    15. Re:Regulatory capture by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Frequency coordination is already done at the state level to a certain degree. Vermont Public Radio, for example, hired a guy and bought expensive software to perform propagation prediction so they could buy up as many frequencies as possible for low power translaters beating out the other stations (of which there aren't very many this being Vermont).

      A close associate of mine is the amateur radio frequency coordinator for the state of Vermont. He's responsible for coordinating repeater frequencies in conjuction with his counterparts in other states (and Candada) as necessary.

      In general all licensed radio users are required to meet certain requirements WRT not interfering with other licensed users so while they fight over bandwidth there is also necessarily some cooperation, especially on the local level, b/c most frequencies above 30mhz do not typically propagate very far (except during solar cycle maximae, like we're in now; 10m is open!)

      None of this really has anything to do with the fact that an industry shill is sitting in "the big chair".

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    16. Re:Regulatory capture by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but EM radiation doesn't respect state borders. It doesn't matter how hard you wish for the theory to work, the practice demands a broader scope. It's part of why broadcasts were one of the first things the EU started regulating when Europe started economically uniting.

      Being opposed to censorship because "public airwaves" is a weak concept is fine. Thinking you can just ditch the structure because your political philosophy says you can is, well, silly.

    17. Re:Regulatory capture by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the earlier poster, but standards could be set at the federal level and regulated at state level. So yes, I do think that could be done.

      Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

    18. Re:Regulatory capture by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      And let's not even talk about the 'tiny town where sheriff Cletus is the law, and only his cousins and the high school football team are above it' problem.

      Not much of a regulatory capture issue, since there just isn't much on the table; but small-scale governance offers some thrilling opportunities for misgovernance according to humanity's oldest tribal atavisms...

    19. Re:Regulatory capture by compro01 · · Score: 1

      The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted

      I draw this statement into question given that the corruption problem basically starts at the city level (franchise agreements, etc.) and metastasizes up from there.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    20. Re:Regulatory capture by TopherC · · Score: 1

      This claim (regulatory capture) would be possible to argue against if only internet access in the US were cheaper or as cheap as it is in other countries without subsidies. We know that's not true, therefore we have a market (and government) failure. Case closed.

    21. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

      And if that aspect of Obamacare hadn't been found unconstitutional, those states would be implementing that particular "standard" at considerable expense.

      But OTOH implementing standards for radio frequency use is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause and thus it doesn't matter if those states like it or not.

    22. Re:Regulatory capture by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the isolation of consequences really doesn't work that way. The Butterfly Effect is very much in play. If ignoring the neighbors didn't ruin the neighborhood I would very much be in favor of sitting back, laughing at and otherwise enjoying the plight of fools.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    23. Re:Regulatory capture by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Not entirely: "Regulatory capture" is the term for a process (often a complex, multi-channel one) where a regulated sector comes to exert control over the relevant regulatory body.

      'Graft', and its utility for rewarding... cooperative... officials is one technique; but a variety of other factors come into play: if most of the perceived expertise about an industry works in that industry, regulatory job openings tend to be filled by people who have expertise; but also have personal and past professional connections with the people they are supposed to be regulating. Outright bribery is crass and generally illegal (unless it's a campaign contribution, of course) so that isn't preferred; but 'revolving door' hiring mechanisms are pretty effective.

      Regulatory capture may also be more coercive (the tobacco industry's showdown with the FDA is perhaps the prototypical example): if there are (or if sympathetic congresscritters can add) any chinks in the regulatory legislation, the ability to drag the would-be-regulator into court for a few years every time they propose to touch just about anything, and the willingness to do so, can really scare a comparatively weak body, especially if their historical mandate (and internal talent pool) is more about techie-nerd stuff like RF interference or foodborne pathogens, rather than high-pressure courtroom work against hostile "Product defense consultants".

      This is not to excuse old-school Tammany Hall Machine and slipping-the-officer-a-$20-with-your-license-and-registration style corruption; but if your model of regulatory capture (and your attempts to halt it) relies on nice, visible, bagmen and suitcases full of cash as being the conduits of influence, it will fail.

    24. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please start a change.org or whatever the hell it is petition to get a request for comment for this shit. It is the most blatantly obvious form of corruption in our government today.

    25. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You don't have enough power to control your neighbors and make them good. That is true whether power is at the federal level or at the local level. Fortunately, the tea party doesn't have power to control you, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If corruption is local, it's your own fault. At least, you have a lot more power to change things in a town of 300,000 than in a country of 300,000,000.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's much easier to "vote with ones' feet" in those cases.

    28. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Thinking you can just ditch the structure because your political philosophy says you can is, well, silly.

      Just as silly as closing your mind to alternatives because......I don't know why you are closing your mind.

      I can think of a few potentially workable alternatives......another poster already replied to you with one that might work, and is worth thinking about. Not being open to alternatives is, well, silly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And central agencies do stuff poorly all over the planet.

      The point is, things that can be done locally are better done locally. Not everything can be done locally. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Regulatory capture by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Like when the FCC removed the requirement for cable companies to pass all OTA signals through their cables for free and started to let them scramble them?

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    31. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you REALLY think you have a chance of getting a less-corrupt president than Obama in the next election?

      As I pointed out many times here: Bush the elder was worse than Reagan, Clinton was worse than Bush the elder, Bush the younger was worse than Clinton, Obama was worse than Bush the younger, and the next guy will be worse than Obama.

    32. Re:Regulatory capture by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Standards can be well set by NGOs as well. Take a look at ANSI or ISO - the key is having a well balanced membership of the participating members. When you've seen failures of ANSI/ISO standards, the failure of that balance is a likely source.

    33. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, at the national level there's not much an individual can do. However, I'll at least try starting a petition:

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/explain-how-nomination-tom-wheeler-cable-and-wireless-industry-lobbyist-protects-interests-people/zCSn6qMY

    34. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corruption goes UP the nearer you go to local levels.

      [citation needed.] Even if this is true in the short run, I can switch location if it really matters to me, so local levels face some long-term competitive pressure to get it right. At the federal level, all I can do is "write my congressman" =). I'd rather have greater corruption with checks and balances than lesser corruption with none.

    35. Re:Regulatory capture by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Ironically the cable networks work by buying off the municipal governments to ensure a monopoly. It regulating cable was done at a higher level it would be better for the common man.

    36. Re:Regulatory capture by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      That's great in theory, but in practice it often doesn't work that way. Local and state governments are often far more corrupt than the federal government. Illiinois has had several of its former governors go to jail...

      See?

      It does work much better at the state and local level then.

      When was the last time you saw a President go to jail or even fear it from cr@p they've pulled in office.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:Regulatory capture by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It may not be possible to create "droids" but it is certainly possible to influence behavior. A law that prohibits driving monster trucks through my yard will take care of a substantial portion of said traffic.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    38. Re:Regulatory capture by spiffmastercow · · Score: 2

      Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

      And if that aspect of Obamacare hadn't been found unconstitutional, those states would be implementing that particular "standard" at considerable expense. But OTOH implementing standards for radio frequency use is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause and thus it doesn't matter if those states like it or not.

      What "aspect" are you talking about? IIRC it's always been a carrot on the stick thing for implementing, otherwise the feds would do it for them. They didn't *have* to implement the standards, and therefore most of them refused, even though the states that did implement their own exchanges fared far better than those that didn't. Abortion is another example. According to SCOTUS it's protected by the constitution. How are those southern states doing in regard to protecting that constitutional right? Or how well do you think New York will do in protecting gun rights if they didn't have to? The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

    39. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vermont Public Radio, for example, hired a guy and bought expensive software to perform propagation prediction so they could buy up as many frequencies as possible for low power translaters beating out the other stations (of which there aren't very many this being Vermont).

      That wouldn't have happened to have been ComStudy he was using, was it? I wrote a pretty substantial part of that package.

    40. Re:Regulatory capture by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      They are not quite the same thing. Generally, they are the same thing but I choose to thing of the newer term "regulatory capture" as distinct; a reflection of our modern times.

      Today's "graft" is far more systematic and organized, the players a many times more powerful. The fall into despotism combined with modern psychology allowing for more than was possible a century ago. So for me, I see "graft" vs "Regulatory Capture" as the difference between "gang crime" and "union of criminal enterprises."

      Graft can be some small group buying off politicians for their selfish little conspiracies but when you have industries of competing crooks working together to get rid of the law -- not completely, but smartly keeping it around for appearances.

    41. Re:Regulatory capture by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      The point is, things that can be done locally are better done locally. But why is that necessarily true? What issue exists that can't be overcome by a good process? I understand the desire for local control and have no problem with it, I'm just trying to understand why it's believed that that's always best, when I can't think of a reason why except for "ideologically it's what I want".

    42. Re:Regulatory capture by Zordak · · Score: 1

      and a supreme court acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of our corporate masters

      I'm really with you, except on this point. Federal judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, are notorious for being wild cards. In retrospect, some of the most notoriously liberal judges have been appointed by Republicans (think Brennan and Blackmun), and some (though fewer) of the most notoriously conservative have been appointed by Democrats (think Hugo Black). Once they're in office, they are essentially little dictators. They don't have to run for reelection. They can't be fired without being impeached. Their salary can't be decreased. They can't lose an election. And they are appointed for life.

      This was by design, to assure an independent judiciary. They are not bought and paid for because they answer to no one. Their only political pressure is whatever judicial legacy they want to craft (this is why we have Obamacare---Roberts didn't want to be known as the arch-conservative who shot down the law). If there is any legitimate complaint about federal judges, it is that they are too independent. But again, that's by design.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    43. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, corruption that doesn't affect you personally doesn't matter. Because, you know, if it only affects a small locale -- well it's their own damn fault, and fuck those guys. Not your problem.

    44. Re:Regulatory capture by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Human nature.

      Whether having to face the people they're selling out, face-to-face, assists in the development of the mythical "politician's conscience", or just the fact that they know that keeping the scale local rather than continental makes it much more likely that they'll get caught with their hands in the til, I don't know.

      But it's easier to keep a clean house when it's a 2000 ft^2 than when it's a 30 story hi-rise.

    45. Re:Regulatory capture by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      What alternatives have you proposed. You just kinda said "smaller government" then pretended that was enough. It's a lame excuse for an argument.

    46. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only this were true. Back before federal copy'right' laws existed the duration of many state copyright laws lasted about as long, or even longer, than current federal copyright laws. Taxi cab monopolies (the whole medallion fiasco) are state sanctioned. Look at the whole scandal that happened in Bell.

      The previous mayor of my city wiggled his way out of many crimes and got away with a lot of wrongdoings before eventually being caught with grand theft. His replacement has had like three felony indictments and like three? fraudulent indictments (or something, I can't remember the exact details).

      IIRC I remember reading a study showing that politicians in Michigan (?) had a substantially greater chance of having a felony background than an average citizen (can't find it now).

      Funny my captcha is altruist

    47. Re:Regulatory capture by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      This, this a thousand times this.

      when I hear about the FCC this makes me sad.
      when I hear about the SEC this makes me mad.


      Lobbyists and former industry executives have no business working for either agency, let alone using the Revolving Door over and over again, swapping between jobs as a regulator and jobs as a lobbyist/executive in the companies they supposedly regulate.

    48. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't expect much sense or rationality from khallow.

    49. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      What "aspect" are you talking about?

      In the US Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, it was determined that "was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding" as Wikipedia put it.

      The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

      And why do you think that is an issue with respect to regulation of radio spectrum? We don't get worked up over how states implement rules on jay walking or murder, for example.

    50. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      A weak insult from an anonymous coward? Why are you unwilling to put a name to this post?

    51. Re:Regulatory capture by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

      And why do you think that is an issue with respect to regulation of radio spectrum? We don't get worked up over how states implement rules on jay walking or murder, for example.

      Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

    52. Re:Regulatory capture by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Frequency bands should be regulated at the municipal level. This way every city can have divide the spectrum however it feels is best. And it will boost the economy because you'll have to buy a new cell phone every time that you enter a new city that uses different portions of the spectrum.

    53. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

      No, can't say that I'm claiming that. Why are you asking?

    54. Re:Regulatory capture by unitron · · Score: 1

      And you think regulating radio interference could be done at a state level without massive consequences?

      I can't speak for the earlier poster, but standards could be set at the federal level and regulated at state level. So yes, I do think that could be done.

      I don't see a lot of issues from the current approach aside from regulation of rather pointless things like naughty words and the aforementioned regulatory capture.

      Electro-magnetic radiation has a tendency not to respect cartographic borders.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    55. Re:Regulatory capture by unitron · · Score: 1

      ...

      Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

      That does raise the interesting question of which can be auctioned off for the greater amount of money.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    56. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you haven't lobbied your municipal government, it's your own stupid fault. Cable networks are just as capable of buying off the federal government, but in that case you don't stand much chance of personally making a difference.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    57. Re:Regulatory capture by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear here, you're claiming that the federal government has no business protecting individual constitutional rights, but has a vested interest in the radio spectrum?

      No, can't say that I'm claiming that. Why are you asking?

      Because that was your response to:

      Abortion is another example. According to SCOTUS it's protected by the constitution. How are those southern states doing in regard to protecting that constitutional right? Or how well do you think New York will do in protecting gun rights if they didn't have to? The point here is that states will pick and choose what they want to implement if given the option.

    58. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. That wasn't my response to that particular assertion. I saw and still see no relevant to spectrum allocation.

    59. Re:Regulatory capture by gtall · · Score: 1

      I see, so you want to replicate Federal regulatory enforcement in 50 states. Yep, that's going to be cost effective.

    60. Re:Regulatory capture by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Frequency coordination is already done at the state level to a certain degree. Vermont Public Radio, for example, hired a guy and bought expensive software to perform propagation prediction so they could buy up as many frequencies as possible for low power translaters beating out the other stations (of which there aren't very many this being Vermont).

      That is not frequency coordination by any stretch of the imagination. That is just a public radio station using low power transmitters to provide service to most of the state without causing undo interference to other broadcasters. The propagation software was used to plan where and what frequency should be used. The FCC is still involved and provides the license required for FM broadcast.

      A close associate of mine is the amateur radio frequency coordinator for the state of Vermont. He's responsible for coordinating repeater frequencies in conjuction with his counterparts in other states (and Candada) as necessary.

      Amateur radio frequency coordination has more to do with repeater frequencies and not general communications. While your local repeater committee may provide the necessary frequency coordination that prevents VHF and UHF repeaters from stepping on each other, it is still the FCC's job to provide enforcement of wireless regulations.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    61. Re:Regulatory capture by khallow · · Score: 1

      I see, so you want to replicate Federal regulatory enforcement in 50 states. Yep, that's going to be cost effective.

      Compared to what? There's not exactly economies of scale here when the federal government does something.

    62. Re:Regulatory capture by symbolset · · Score: 1

      So you haven't heard about the DOJ yet then?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    63. Re:Regulatory capture by unitron · · Score: 1

      ... A law that prohibits driving monster trucks through my yard will take care of a substantial portion of said traffic.

      Well, yeah, if you don't go with the land mine option instead.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    64. Re:Regulatory capture by unitron · · Score: 1

      Seeing as going totally off topic is the new fad on /. ...

      Well you're obviously new here.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    65. Re:Regulatory capture by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the DOJ regulates specific private industries, unless you're referring to the BOP or particular cases of over-reach legislation via the ICC.

    66. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It may seem strange to you, but I don't consider myself a king who can force all the world to be good. if other people want help getting rid of corruption and I can help them, I will, but if they aren't willing to put in the effort, I'm not going to force the issue.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    67. Re: Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every high rise I've been in has been cleaner and better constructed than the suburban house filled neighborhoods I've been in. Except for the ones with draconian HOAs.

      I think the opposite is true, shit is local, the big stuff has more eyes to keep it necessary to clean.

    68. Re:Regulatory capture by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Apparently the US DOJ regulates industries that aren't even in the US, like file hosting services in New Zealand. They also can selectively prosecute targets of big content industry ire, like Aaron Swartz.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    69. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ^ Someone who doesn't get it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    70. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm just trying to understand why it's believed that that's always best

      Honestly, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how your reading comprehension can be so bad that you still think anyone said that it's always best. Learn to read! No one said that! You're writing as though you have your eyes closed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    71. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's ok, you haven't really said anything worth responding to. You can read, but kan you think?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    72. Re:Regulatory capture by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I understand the desire for local control and have no problem with it, I'm just trying to understand why it's believed that that's always best, when I can't think of a reason why except for "ideologically it's what I want".

      Here it is: When you have local control, two things obtain: (1), the number of people affected by the control being exerted is minimal, and (2) the people being affected (or afflicted) have a much larger input as to change or continuation, so that if said control turns out to be onerous (as many of the FCC's radio-related controls are), the locals can actually change them -- or, likewise, if they prefer the current state of affairs, they are considerably more empowered to maintain the status quo.

      On the other side of the coin, control exerted at the national level, as the FCC is currently a poster child for, is completely resistant to local control, circumstance, or intent, without some unusual input channel (bribery, corporate shill, real estate slinging, etc.)

      The FCC used to matter in that the communications below 30 mhz -- AM radio, etc. -- were critical to the system, and said communications go all over the place depending on the time of day. We no longer depend significantly on these communications, and the FCC's relevance at a national level is therefore in some doubt.

      Understand now?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    73. Re:Regulatory capture by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      Yes however the regulated sector comes to exert control over the relevant regulatory body by, ahem, "incentivizing" individuals involved to subvert the regulatory control, through golden parachutes and what-not. i.e. "unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain" == Graft. I see nothing in the definition of graft that excludes complex multi-channel processes involving one to many players, or limit the term to just bagmen and suitcases full of cash/direct old school bribing. Regulatory Capture is just a nice way of saying Graft - they probably use it because most of our institutions are now wholly corrupted and do not like it when we call it how it is.

    74. Re:Regulatory capture by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      That is kind of my point, the term "regulatory capture" is a nice feel-good term but when you boil away all the layers of "competing crooks working together to get rid of the law" - for personnel gain - what your left with is graft. I see nothing in the definition of graft that excludes or excuses the individuals involved just because there are systematic organized and powerful players. At the end of the day it is just unscrupulous use of a politician's (or goverment functionary) authority for personal gain.

    75. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not exactly economies of scale here when the federal government does something.

      Actually there is. When you want to force people to do something, having fewer centralized gangs of thugs patrolling multiple states is more efficient than having 50 different ones in each state.

      It becomes even more efficient if you minimize what the public knows about your goon squad, or pretty much anything else you do. Scare the people into submission. This is easier to do on a federal level.

      It's also easier to convince your goon squad to act against your citizens when the goons come from a completely different region/home town. And when you have a goon squad that is willing and capable of making examples out of people, you can create a chilling effect which saves future costs in policing.

      In case you haven't noticed, this is exactly what they've been doing. Secret courts, secret orders, spying they don't want you to know, laying ridiculous charges on people for non-crimes as punishment, etc.

      Government doesn't gravitate towards those things just because they're evil or corrupt. It's just more efficient that way.

    76. Re:Regulatory capture by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      I quoted it in my reply.

      The point is, things that can be done locally are better done locally.
      Which implies that things that can be done locally are (always) better done locally. My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.

    77. Re:Regulatory capture by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      No, because that can be handled by a process designed to prevent that.

    78. Re:Regulatory capture by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      So, you demand I open my mind to "workable alternatives" then, whoops they don't exist because you're an idiot?

      Surprise.

    79. Re:Regulatory capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether having to face the people they're selling out, face-to-face, assists in the development of the mythical "politician's conscience", or just the fact that they know that keeping the scale local rather than continental makes it much more likely that they'll get caught with their hands in the til, I don't know.

      I come from a small town in the South that was literally founded by the Chicago mob as a money laundering facility, there are rumors that the banks there STILL do this. To this day the politicians there are outwardly corrupt, and don't give two shits if you point it out or not. It's all about good old boys clubs in most places, and they will look you in the eye and smile while they lie and scheme against you. On a local or national level, it's exactly the same; remove sociopaths from positions of power and the world will suddenly become a MUCH better place.

    80. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I gave you an indication where you can find one

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    81. Re:Regulatory capture by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      On a local or national level, it's exactly the same; remove sociopaths from positions of power and the world will suddenly become a MUCH better place.

      Very true. But on a local level, at least, you can get out the tar and feathers. :) Of course, that leads to one very big question: once you remove the sociopaths, what do you replace them with?

      "Any person who seeks power should, under no circumstances, be allowed to obtain it." -- Not sure if/where I read that

    82. Re:Regulatory capture by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      I am not a party to the argument, so can you at least point me to the post ? I am genuinely interested in how public spectrum could be managed without a central authority.
      Internet needs no regulation, because cables are not a limited quantity. Neither does cable (except for censoring nudity or what not; which I don't necessarily agree with).
      But what alternative is there to FCC in managing radio/wireless spectrum?

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    83. Re:Regulatory capture by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    84. Re:Regulatory capture by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      thx

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    85. Re:Regulatory capture by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe English could use less words (it has the record) and less phrases as well... But I see the term as a more detailed subset under the general term "graft."

      Graft tends to make one think of a range of things and at least for me, it makes me think of a range of things which includes today's problems. Usually, I'm not in favor of a new term being created for no good reason-- but corruption is a major theme in human existence and there are many types of graft. If something unimportant such as the color blue gets dozens of names to go with every shade, graft should have at least as many terms.

      Some kinds of graft are not as important or may be less important than other kinds-- same with corruption. I don't care if an official abuses their power so they can cheat of their wife- it's a fringe benefit of having power I won't begrudge them a normal outlet for their flaws; nearly all people seeking power do it so they can exercise that power (for good or ill.) We'll say they are corrupt-- well, yes-- but so what, that kind of corruption doesn't matter. No, it doesn't mean we can't trust them to do their job honestly - it is a false analogy to do so. We lack the proper terminology so everything gets lumped into 1 term that covers true EVIL to private mistakes. This becomes part of the argument Orwell makes in 1984 about the use of language to control the peoples' thinking (actually made stronger in his supplement on newspeak)

  6. Very dramatic changes by chromas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives

    Changes? Like putting speed bumps on the highway?

  7. Barratry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another crony appointee getting paid off for campaign contributions.

  8. Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner rescue by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know a government is corrupt when they don't even bother to hide it anymore.

  9. Hu?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this not a conflict on interest?? What a stupid thing to do.

  10. Hope and change! by cogeek · · Score: 2

    At least we won't have to worry about any more lobbyists in Washington under this administration.

    1. Re:Hope and Change! by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      > and making sure that people have to pay vastly inflated prices to health insurers under ACA

      Not true. At least for me here in Oregon, my insurance costs have gone down with the ACA. And that is without a dime of govt. assistance.

    2. Re:Hope and Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny, the bailout of the car companies was highly successful and saved 1000s of middle class jobs. but who cares about them, you have your ideology to trumpet.

      And the ACA point is a lie. ive payed vastly inflated prices to health insurers before the ACA and prices are going down most places.

    3. Re:Hope and Change! by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Not true. At least for me here in Oregon, my insurance costs have gone down with the ACA. And that is without a dime of govt. assistance.

      We pay an average of around $7000/person/year. That's "vastly inflated" and it keeps going up. Even if your personal rates have gone down, it doesn't change that. Since the average hasn't gone down, if you pay less, someone else must pay more. Probably someone else who is healthier and at less risk than you.

    4. Re:Hope and Change! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lucky you. I manage the healthcare account for 90 people on the plan at a small business. Its costing us and all our employees a huge sum. We're working at minimizing the damage now. I'm seeing increases from 20-40% for our group plan. We''re talking several hundred thousand dollars.

  11. from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Republican Senator Ted Cruz earlier on Tuesday said he had removed a hold on Wheeler's nomination after the nominee reassured him during a meeting that regulation of campaign funding disclosures, without Congressional action, was "not a priority."

    In other words, Cruz was concerned that this guy might increase regulations on politicians seeking re-election. Once he was assured that was not the case, Cruz had no problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC.

    Thanks, Tea Party!

    1. Re:from TFA by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he was the only one to show any concern that this appointee might use his power for political purposes. Considering the choice, its not a stretch, whether you agree with his position or not. And to be fair, Neither Obama or any other senator, Democratic or Republican "had any problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC" either.

    2. Re:from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continue your Cruz non-fan-dom, it looks like he only objected because he was worried that his secret donors might be revealed. As far as I can find, none of his objections actually had anything to do with unethical appointees. Quoting The Hill:

      "The vote was delayed for two weeks by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who expressed concern about Wheeler's views on political disclosure rules. Cruz lifted his objection after Wheeler assured him in a private meeting Tuesday that tougher disclosure requirements for the donors behind political TV ads are "not a priority" for him."

      Even worse, now we know for sure that it's not a priority for him to attempt to protect the political process.

    3. Re:from TFA by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he was the only one to show any concern that this appointee might use his power for political purposes.

      FFS, the "political purposes" Cruz was worried about is MORE disclosures of campaign funding sources.
      He was especially worried about it because the Tea Party groups that helped him are largely funded by a few sugar daddies that want to stay anonymous.

      Cruz held this nomination up in order to maintain the status quo, instead of allowing increased transparency in the public interest.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:from TFA by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how you feel about disclosure requirements, do you think the FCC Chairman should have the power to decide how and when they are implemented? That should be left to congress, the FCC chair should be a-political, IMHO.

      FWIW, some donors, no matter what their affiliation, like to be kept anonymous because there are idiots out there that harass them, threaten their families, etc, and some folks want that disclosure for that very reason.

    5. Re:from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you can still not be a fan of Cruz. All he wanted was a commitment that the FCC wouldn't try to force ads on TV to disclose who funded them. I'm sure that isn't in anyone's best interest except politicians looking to have someone else pay for their election though dark money...

  12. No lack of knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of the industry for solving the lack of concurrency of internet service provides in US.

  13. yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Barry now has a minion running the FCC. That should go well.

  14. Come here donor to my greatness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please accept this position for all past and all future help you will give my Campaign. Feel free to take the pen and whatever else you can find that isn't nailed down tightly. If you do find something nailed down you want, feel free to write some guidelines that will allow the removal of said fasteners. Feel free to use the FISA court to hide any transference of ownership, or anything else you'd like, for the sake of getting those Commie socialist terror subjects!!

    '/sargasm'

  15. 700 MHz LTE :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wireless carrier is Verizon Wireless, and my phone is on the 700 MHz LTE band. I wonder how long until Tommy decides to lift the open access / semi-net-neutrality clauses on the spectrum. Sure, that would be helping cellular carriers and not cable, but the whole industry is basically in collusion against consumers, in the interests of greater profit. The one extremely unusual exception to this is when the analog TV spectrum was sold for 4G wireless in 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction#Google_involvement

    I'm sure this guy would much sooner gain the approval, cooperation, and $$$ of cellular carriers by getting rid of this pro-consumer contract, than to actually stick up for something that benefits consumers. Then he can say that he's equally the friend of all large telecoms companies, not just cable.

    Can't believe I voted for the guy who nominated Mr. Wheeler for his position.

  16. weeee... by GrimShady · · Score: 1

    Hope and Change.... woohoo!!!!!!!

  17. It all makes perfect sense! by fredrated · · Score: 2

    Next up, we put bank robbers in charge of bank security, because who has more experience with bank security than bank robbers?

    1. Re:It all makes perfect sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The biggest bank robbers are the C?O executives, and they are in charge of bank security.

    2. Re:It all makes perfect sense! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the point. Who does know about the needs of the communications industry? These regulatory industries have to deal with making rules to facilitate business strategy--that means they have to protect the interests of both small and large businesses. They need to know not about just engineering concerns, but also executive-level management concerns.

      How do you do that?

    3. Re:It all makes perfect sense! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Executives are there to execute business strategy. They should be present in business; their interference with government regulations is questionable, although hiring these people for their expertise is justifiable.

      Consider however in a business, you require some form of top-down authority. Now you have a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, and Chief Executive Officer (i.e. Executive of Executives, the guy who decides we need a CFO and CIO and CTO). Now your business deals in a lot of Internet stuff, but you don't have a CTO or CISO. So people at the bottom complaining about the business leveraging technology horribly or about poor information security practices don't have a voice up at the executive level. We're buying things--Executives are into this--and peering with new networks.

      Someone decides we need information security, and the CEO decides to hire a CISO.

      Now when the executives meet and discuss the business strategy, the CISO starts injecting that the business relies on functional Internet services. The CISO starts complaining that we peered with a network that doesn't meet the business' non-existent security standards, and that the network is so fucked up that it's probably compromised and probably now allows hoards of botnet hackers to suck credit card information out of their supposedly PCI3 compliant financial systems. The CISO starts slamming his fist on the table in the boardroom screaming about the unbelievable amount of unacceptable risk and legal liability the business is exposed to, and how the business strategy is racing forward with reckless abandon and not integrating these critical aspects of their business needs into the business strategy and actions.

      That's what Executives do. When there's an executive missing that the business needs, stuff becomes really shitty for the business, its customers, and its employees. Hell, some businesses have Chief Ethics Officers just so there's someone there to not allow them to sell customer information to scammers with the protective shielding of some legal loophole that dispels all liability (or because there's Ethics Regulation in their business--it's either voluntary or forced).

    4. Re:It all makes perfect sense! by zidium · · Score: 1

      That already happened in 2005, no, seriously ;-(

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    5. Re:It all makes perfect sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem there is that the CISO isn't saying anything that any of the worker bees couldn't have told the CEO themselves, had he been willing to listen to them instead of limiting his advisory circle to those he considers to be "at his level". And the CISO's effectiveness relies on him being willing to relay those concerns to his boss and not backing down on them. The Challenger crew died and billions of dollars were lost because management refused to listen to the workers that actually had competence in their field - "management knew better", and as a result 27 years later pieces are still washing up on shore.

  18. Fox elected to guard henhouse, news at 11 (on Fox) by korbulon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All these revelations and new about the fcc, nsa, tsa, etc etc all serve to hammer home the same point: rules are for suckers, rules are for idiots, rules are for everyone else.

    As you as you reach a certain level of power, you ascend into a special clique where the only rules that matter are those that pertain to that clique. So break and bend the laws of the land, yes fine, but heaven help you if you transgress the pre-existing power matrix, that you commit some unforgivable faux pas at the dinner party, because then fuck you.

    I know all this - I've known it for years: the world is a dirty place filled with filthy, corrupt, disgusting characters where morals and regulations and laws are put in place largely to maintain order, not justice. And yet stories like this still never fail to fill me with an indescribable loathing.

  19. Obligitory Star Wars reference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  20. So.. Anyone objecting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the FCC is fucked in the near term. Not that it's been really great recently anyway. The FCC seems pretty impotent, and rubber stamp whatever the media industry wants. And yes, the media industry wants strange, inconsistent, byzantine rules regarding censorship. (Creates barriers to entry for small upstarts)

    Are the republican raising hell about this appointment? No? Didn't think so.

  21. Meet The New Boss by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Same as the old boss.

    Really we should just move the capitol to someplace like Iowa and start fresh.

    1. Re:Meet The New Boss by korbulon · · Score: 1

      Have you been to Iowa? Sure don't smell fresh.

    2. Re:Meet The New Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      move it to Canada, well give you our politicians in return :)

    3. Re:Meet The New Boss by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great place to camouflage our politicians. I mean really who is going to notice a bit more bullshit in a state where they coat most of the ground with it in the spring.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Meet The New Boss by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      Hey, I live in Iowa and I take offense to the idea that it could possibly smell worse than Washington.

      Reminds me of the lawyer joke (told to me by a lawyer). An angry man walks into a bar, slams his fist on the bar and says "All lawyers are assholes." Another man stands up and says "I resent that!" The first replies with "Why? Are you a lawyer?"

      Response: "No, I'm an asshole."

  22. Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First I laughed. Then I cried when I realized this wasn't a joke but reality.

  23. Obligitory Obi-Wan quote by Al+Dunsmuir · · Score: 1

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  24. Hope and Change by lowkster · · Score: 1

    Ah, I must have misread the slogan. It was Hope for Change.

  25. This can't possibly be an accurate report. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry, but I don't believe this whatsoever. I distinctly remember our president campaigning on an end to the revolving door of industry lobbyists and executives to head political positions and vice versa.

    A little googling later . . . : https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/rev.php

    Oh. Well, then. . .

    1. Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. by GlennC · · Score: 2

      He did remove the revolving door....

      and replaced it with an automatic sliding one.

      Revolving doors are so 20th Century!

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    2. Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2

      But it makes that cool Star Trek noise when it opens...

    3. Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember our president campaigning on an end to the revolving door of industry lobbyists and executives to head political positions and vice versa.

      And then immediately after taking office, blew off the veteran's inaugural ball (which had traditionally been the first of the night to have been attended since Eisenhower's presidency) to schmooze with the entertainment industry bigwigs at MTV's inaugural ball. A look at his Justice Department shortly thereafter put a lot of things in clear focus.

    4. Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore informed him that revolving doors are better for the environment, so he took that back.

    5. Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it sounded more like a slot machine payout.

  26. Almost as bad by korbulon · · Score: 1

    As being able to mod-up your own comments on Slashdot. I said almost

  27. And once again ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    We appoint the fox to guard the hen-house.

    Expect a wave of business-friendly rules coming out of the FCC as he writes in everything he's ever lobbied for.

    Maybe Bernie Madoff could be considered to chair the SEC next?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  28. ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... i love it, and this in now way shape or form conflict of interest, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  29. We the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We the people hereby declare the FCC to be invalid.

    Stay tuned for more on KCUF, the 100 Watt beacon of unlicensed truth in the Bay Area.

    1. Re:We the people by korbulon · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't matter if it were a 1000 Watt beacon. This is a land where no one listens to the radio.

    2. Re:We the People by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Is it too late to start a 'we the people' petition against this? At least to try to force some accountability in such a 'choice'.

      Has a We the People petition ever made a difference, or do they all just get a press-interview style response?

  30. Re:Fox elected to guard henhouse, news at 11 (on F by lgw · · Score: 1

    I really like the way you out that. It's not about "the rich" vs everyone else, because if you're not a part of a powerful clique, your wealth won't help you, and if you know the right people, went to the right schools, and can be useful, wealth will flow your way as a beneficiary of the corruption.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  31. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just leave this here... http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Guillotine

  32. Did he get a waiver to serve? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Obama said that he would not allow lobbyists to server in government posts, but he put in a waiver procedure that permits it. Did this person go through that waiver procedure?
    FYI: Politifact information about the lobbyist promise. There haven't been any updates there regarding this position.

    1. Re:Did he get a waiver to serve? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That waiver you referring to is the waving of his lips to is.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Did he get a waiver to serve? by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      Not in this case.The law is that you can't lobby after you leave the government (for two years). In this case, it is the other way around. He was a lobbyist a few years ago (basically a head of a trade group). Now he is an investor.
      I think this appointment goes with the idea that government is there to maximize profits for the nation. What better way to increase Cable profits than to appoint a cable lobbyist to regulate Cable TV ? What better way to maximize banking profits than to appoint a bank CEO to Treasury secretary? No one ever complains when a ex-military person becomes secretary of state or even the president...
      NOTE:The above mentioned are not necessarily my views. But I do see a rational method to this madness.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
  33. Thud! by some+old+guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The sound of the Last Obama Fan On Slashdot's forehead hitting the desk.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Thud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so sure. Despite breaking every promise that mattered, not allowing any buck to stop on his desk ("the President didn't know about this nor any other bad thing that has taken place in the last 5 years") and essentially continuing every bad policy from the Bush Administration, there will still be plenty of people willing to defend him.

    2. Re:Thud! by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of people will be mad at me for saying this, but President Obama has gotten a free pass for lots of bad stuff because of his race. If a white Republican congressperson started a movement to impeach him for (just to pick an easy example) waging war in Libya without congressional authorization, they would be called racist faster than you can say the words "colorblind society".

    3. Re:Thud! by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Holy Shit! Slashdot grew a forehead?!

    4. Re:Thud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The previous 43 white presidents got a free pass for all the same stuff. Quite a few of those (just to pick your example) waged war without congressional authorization as well, and they were not impeached.

    5. Re:Thud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Tongue firmly in cheek]
      Well yeah, the last WHITE president got to start all the wars he wanted to just fine. But now that a BLACK president wants to start one, you're all oh-I-want-constitutional-approval, wah wah wah. You're just RACIST!

    6. Re:Thud! by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      No, all presidents get a pass on a lot of terrible stuff. The only difference is people like you who believe that, this time, it's because he's black. Shockingly, not everything Obama does or every reaction he receives is directly related to his race. I will grant that it has been an overwhelming issue, though.

    7. Re:Thud! by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Not really sure what you're trying to say, and not sure that you are either. But just for your info, Bush got congressional approval for his foreign wars. Many people have forgotten that Senators like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards -- at the time standard bearers of the Democratic Party, supported the Iraq War, which was a bipartisan effort. Not saying it was a good idea, as maybe both sides were idiots for doing so, just saying that constitutional protocol was followed. Whereas Obama only reaches for the Constitution when he's out of Charmin(tm) rolls.

    8. Re:Thud! by sideslash · · Score: 1

      We have seen some major public figures admitting that they voted for him primarily because he is black, and there is a really distressing chorus of "racism!" lobbied by cynical liberals at those who merely oppose his policies (e.g. the Tea Party). I admire President Obama for mostly avoiding stirring up racial trouble from his "bully pulpit" (with a few exceptions, like the Trayvon Martin case), but he's done very little to shut up many of his nasty, race baiting liberal allies.

  34. Another lobbyist? by Biosci777 · · Score: 5, Informative
    This president promised he would boot the lobbyists; that they would not have access to his administration. The FCC appointment is only the latest evidence that that promise is broken. Conor McGrath wrote in the Journal of Public Affairs in September that Obama employs 119 (make that 120 now) former lobbyists.

    Wow. If I fall off the wagon and break my promise, I'm like any other human. But when I do it over and over again with no sign of regret or shame, that's different. That's a matter of character, and you would be right to be slow to trust me in other areas.

    1. Re:Another lobbyist? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      But when I do it over and over again with no sign of regret or shame, that's different. That's a matter of character, and you would be right to be slow to trust me in other areas.

      Silly, Obama can't run for reelection again. After cautiously, surreptitiously violating his campaign promises for the first four years, he can openly thumb his nose now. What are you going to do about it, boycott his presidential library?

  35. You Know, . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama promised "change" but didn;t specify that we woudl like it.

  36. A new clause needed for "public service" by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Institute something modeled after the standard non-compete clause used by industry; except it would prevent any individual from holding a government position which directly regulates, affects or promotes the same sector or type of business they left the private sector for, to become a public servant.

    Conversely, once leaving public service, the individual would be enjoined from contacting officials on behalf of, promoting, lobbying or attempting to influence legislation for any business or industry, for a period of three years.

    A perfect clause would prevent someone from taking a job in any industry, after lobbying on its behalf, for a period of five years.

    Which would stop crap like this.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:A new clause needed for "public service" by Bigby · · Score: 1

      I think this would pass a public vote at 90%+. It would pass a Democrat or Republic party insiders' vote by 10%. And the only ones allowed to make that vote are the party insiders.

      You have to have the people (not state politics) form a Constitutional Convention to pass it as a Federal amendment. This same thing should apply to Congress people, Supreme Court members, Presidents, Secretary of X, etc...

    2. Re:A new clause needed for "public service" by Baron+von+Daren · · Score: 1

      Creating an elaborate web of rules that attempts to prevent abuses is futile and ultimately counterproductive.

      Though the concept of lobbying and private campaign contributions (of any kind) are sound in the abstract; they are simply too easily gamed and abused in practice. The real answer to much of what ills the American political process is the is the abolishment of organized lobbying and a complete revamp of the campaign process to a shorter, solely publicly funded model. Would these changes engender significant negative consequences? Certainly, but the advantages greatly exceed those negative consequences.

      On a somewhat tangential note, a logical response to government corruption and ineptitude shouldn’t be hostility to the very idea of government; it should be hostility to those who are corrupting the government and the democratic ouster of inept officials (of course, we seem to have an inept public, so there is that). Contemporary first-world governments, as dysfunctional and corrupt as they may be, are still doing their part to maintain the greatest societies humanity has ever known. Technology and markets certainly have an equal share of the credit, but, as I have said on /. many times, there are numerous examples of societies with small, weak governments and they are not dreamy utopias of human freedom and economic prosperity. Its no accident that the most economically powerful nations with the most civil liberties in history have huge governments: governments work, even when they suck. So, the answer isn’t to be hostile to the idea of government, but to play a citizen's role in helping government more closely approach its ideal potential.

      It's better to have a bloated, current government that preforms the function of governance reasonably well, than a lean, clean government that is incapable of doing so. Reality is messy. We would all like perfect solutions, but sometimes we have to live with solutions that provide the most pragmatically positive result.

      PS it is appalling nevertheless.

    3. Re:A new clause needed for "public service" by swb · · Score: 1

      I think this is a great idea, but it sounds almost impossible to enforce.

      It would be pretty simple for a lobbying entity to hire a former public official in a consulting role without having them actually do any lobbying and instead only provide information sharing with people who do lobby. Even easier to do when the lobbying entity is a law firm and the public official is a lawyer, since there's non-lobbying work that they can do.

      And then there's the notion of just hiring them or placing them on a retainer so that they will go to work for you after their period is up. It's not hard to see some kind of desire to capture all the possible public officials who could work in a particular area.

    4. Re:A new clause needed for "public service" by adolf · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you propose that the only people who should be eligible for public service are scholars and people who have an inherently limited understanding of the subject.

      This means that I, as someone who has worked in communications for over a decade with a good working set of knowledge about many things both wired and wireless, would not be able to be appointed the task of running the FCC.

      It also means that my neighbor, who is a substitute teacher, he'd be OK. So would my other neighbor, who runs a taco stand. Or a classy lawyer-sort who just "still doesn't understand how this Newtube thing works." Or someone who has made it their life's ambition to collect college degrees, but who cannot hold a job better than mopping floors: Certainly, a stellar candidate.

      Or, for that matter: Oh, you've worked in law enforcement? No, you can't run a law enforcement agency!

      Or: Hey, you built transformers for Siemens? No DOE appointment for you!

      You know, I think your proposal is a great way to ensure that only the most clueless, willfully ignorant people (aka "politicians") get such appointments.

  37. Not the first time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not quite as bad as when Obama appointment the VP of Monsanto as a food safety Czar. Seems perfectly legit to me. http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-appoints-monsanto-vp-to-food-safety-czar/

  38. Cable News anchors ask. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives.

    Taking inspiration from Jon Stewart's commentary last night about the recent trend in cable news (namely CNN) anchor questions:
    I'll ask, "Is this a good thing or bad thing?"

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Cable News anchors ask. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2

      I saw that segment and it was hugely depressing. This is what our country has come to. Is it a good thing... or a bad thing...?

    2. Re:Cable News anchors ask. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I saw that segment and it was hugely depressing. This is what our country has come to. Is it a good thing... or a bad thing...?

      I'm going to say: bad thing ... [ CNN can quote me on that :-) ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Cable News anchors ask. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have far more faith in humanity if they asked that question because then at least they would be questioning things. In reality the public at large doesn't ask, they just blindly follow whatever they are told by someone that can state it with an official tone.

  39. Cruz holds up FCC nominee.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cruz holds up FCC nominee. Demands relaxed political ad donor to disclosure requirements

    Is the way the article should read.

    And Rand Paul is going to hold up Yellens nomination so we can recount all the Gold in Fort Knox.

    You go GOP, That'll help the economy.

    1. Re:Cruz holds up FCC nominee.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so we can recount all the Tungsten in Fort Knox

      Fixed that for you.

  40. Hope and Change! by stenvar · · Score: 2

    After bailing out car companies and banks, paying off Wall Street, and making sure that people have to pay vastly inflated prices to health insurers under ACA, and after shoving many billions in the hands of energy companies (green and otherwise), I guess Obama is now turning his laser sharp crony-capitalist intellect towards screwing over the American people with another all time favorite: telecommunications.

  41. We the People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it too late to start a 'we the people' petition against this? At least to try to force some accountability in such a 'choice'.

  42. Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Are you not glad that all of those crazy conspiracy theorists were just "crazy conspiracy theorists"? Sarcasm aside, while nothing is currently changing at least myself and others can say "Told ya so!" and watch more and more of the reality we were telling you about unfold.

    For everyone now learning how bad reality really is, it may be worth making your own shiny new hat!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  43. Net Neutrality gone in .... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    3, 2, 1.....

    Faster than you could download "Gone in 60 seconds"!

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  44. Prez missed the ball again by tkr · · Score: 1

    He should have nominated FCC babe Jessica Rosenworcel.

    1. Re:Prez missed the ball again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " FCC babe Jessica Rosenworcel."

            Yea, she's a cutie all right.

    2. Re:Prez missed the ball again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks

  45. Revolving-door business as usual by macraig · · Score: 1

    Remember, the chairman-before-last was Michael Powell who hit the revolving door going the other direction, so Wheeler arriving through the same door shouldn't come as a shock. It should still piss you off to the point of beating your ploughshare into a sword and sharpening your pitchfork.

  46. Could you possibly imagine? by footNipple · · Score: 1

    Could you possibly imagine the vitriol in a 1000+ post topic had this been a republican senate and/or president responsible for the nomination of this person? But it's a democrat president and senate, so while it's a bummer, life goes on.

  47. Fox Guarding The Henhouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would seem that way to me...

  48. Alternatives? by superflippy · · Score: 1

    Time to start working on the darknet in earnest.

    --
    Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    1. Re:Alternatives? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      What you don't understand is that the government can see in the dark. Even if you invent a new kind of dark, they'll just respond by making sure they can see in that, too.

      Silence and secrecy are the wrong answers.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  49. Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Regulatory capture is an old problem that continues to spread but has been around for decades - the direct proof of the corruption has been lacking due to the pathetic press which itself has been captured in a similar way so it can't serve it's regulatory role either.

    THEY DO HIDE IT, the direct obvious unavoidable proof is not allowed out in the open and they will wage a political war against anybody who LEAKS such evidence (despite informed and reasonable people knowing all of it beforehand they didn't have the level of proof for the masses that leaks provide.)

  50. Maybe it's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time you say you don't believe the fine is really a tax, a fairy dies.

    Maybe it's time to start splattering fairies with a big flyswatter.

  51. Does the president know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    what hypocrisy means? You DON'T choose a cable company lobbyist to chair the FCC. This elevates the term "conflict of interest" to a whole new level

  52. Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    They don't have to hide anything. The voters are just as corrupt.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  53. Serious?? by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

    Why don't we just make Satan leader of the Ecumenical Council? Or Charles Manson the Surgeon General. Wow, just wow. How far the mighty have fallen, sigh.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  54. Oblig. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    We got hosed, Tommy. We got hosed.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  55. In that case, earning money is illegal by tepples · · Score: 1

    In that case, does the existence of tax deductions and tax credits transform income tax into a fine for earning money without doing the things that qualify one for deductions and credits?

  56. War on Terror == World War IV by tepples · · Score: 1

    No, that's World War IV. World War III was the Cold War.

  57. Distributed System flipside: Divide and Conquer by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Distributed systems have a downside just as powerful that works against them: Divide and Conquer.

    The real issue is separation of powerful influences. Too much narrow thinking prevents people from thinking outside government.

    Private political power is the #1 problem today. The founders did nothing to separate private powers, except they didn't have corporations (in name only, they were nothing like they are today - and certainly corporations were NOT people.)

    Your small components of government might be more tangible and more connected to citizens; but they are much much weaker! My city got Walmart unwillingly; almost nobody wants them here. How? They spent 10 years harassing and trying to buy influence, ultimately resulting in a lawsuit attack in which the city quickly retreated (terrorism by broken legal system - terrorism is not limited to physical violence.) They probably even stacked the judges in their favor over the last decade... since ours run for office and each time 1 would have way more advertizing than in the past (nobody knew anything about the judges before, now you know 1 person's name for sure.) Local newspaper? Almost non-existent and done by part timers, rarely controversial or deep - and if it were... somehow... they'd be as toothless as our city is when going up against powerful national forces. Even wealthy locals push them around.

  58. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since he's so close to the cable industry, I'm sure he'll be able to work with Comcast to fix my Netflix streaming issues. Funny how I can't even stream a standard definition show without regular buffering and poor image quality regardless of the device I use or time of day but I can (for now) stream "HD" content from Amazon (and many other content providers) without issue. Netflix streaming quality continues to drop while I get more and more offers from Comcast to buy their cable TV products. Kinda hard not to put on the foil hat.

  59. Pay to play by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Well, at least we know the rules haven't changed any, nor the outcome.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  60. Net neutrality by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    Could someone explain what this means for net neutrality? Lets assume he's opposed to it (evidently he's made some vague statements in favor of it in the past, but let's not be naive). As I understand it, there's a court case currently with Verizon trying to challenge the FCC's ability to regulate net neutrality period.

    Can this lobbyist flat out give up on the court case? If the court case upholds the previous rules, can this guy immediately revoke the rules or are they staying?

    Can Wheeler singlehandedly end net neutrality forevermore?

  61. HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a clear conflict of interest?

  62. This One Just In... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    In the News today, Manson Family chanteuses Sandra Goode and Lynette Fromme start "Charlies Camp" , a daycare for toddlers 2-5.....

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  63. Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would make a shiny new hat, but I'm afraid I'd get sued for infringing upon some patent or copyright.

  64. Cable Lobbyist Tom Wheeler Confirmed As New FCC Ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cable Lobbyist Tom Wheeler Confirmed As New FCC Chief"

    The nation is in the very best of hands.

    You ninnyhammers that voted democrat, or didn't vote, better pull you collective heads out of your algore. The nation is going down the shitter faster than Monica can give head to a cigar.

  65. Re:Fox elected to guard henhouse, news at 11 (on F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent further up...

  66. Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well can you say He was bought and paid for on a 30 year Mortgage by the same companies he is now appointed ( NOT Elected ) to oversee.And now that the Obamamafia have crippled the sunshine laws we will hear about the backroom dealing, "private" consultations from someone besides the FBI or others under the department of InJustice where there must be a full department protecting the interests, finances, and activities of all the "Friends" of Obama.