16 ms·

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

by parfe 12y ago

jebblue 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.
- lvs 12y ago
  Who could possibly have foreseen this?
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.
  - ZachPruckowski 12y ago
    The problem with that is that the only folks qualified for these jobs are folks with some sort of recent related experience, and the only future job that this is revenue-boosting for is in related domains.
    - turing 12y ago
      But that doesn't mean that we have to appoint from within industry. There are probably many academics who would be just as qualified or more than former industry lobbyists. Moreover, these people would probably be more than happy to return to academia and research after serving their tenure.
  - pyre 12y ago
    The flip side is that you won't want someone in said position that doesn't know anything about the industry. Do you want a luddite making technology policy, for example. Not that I'm all for regulatory capture or anything.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      > Do you want a luddite making technology policy No and that's exactly what we have right now.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      That is not a flip side, it's a false dichotomy, because there is an enormous middle ground there.
      - pyre 12y ago
        I never said it was a dichotomy. Just because I presented an opposing side of an issue does not mean that I'm presenting a dichotomy. One of the reasons that people are pulled from industry to fill these roles is because there is a view that they will understand the issues at play. This is true. We don't want people making policy decisions on issues that they barely understand. At the same time, it becomes the incestuous relationship that we have (aka Regulatory Capture) where there is incentive to make policy decisions that are pro-business while being anti-consumer. There is some sort of a middle-ground to be had, but saying things like "people should not be allowed to hold office if unless they've been out of the industry for at least 5 years" seems a bit naive.
        rhizome 12y ago
        Well yes, "flip side" implies a dichotomy. What's the middle-ground of a coin's faces? It's not helpful to characterize alternatives as naive, ignorant, or Ludditic. The question is not one of naivety, but of actual policy, which is the stuff that affects all of us. How would the work of an outsider (or statutory redshirt) differ from a revolving-door candidate, one whose foundation is sell side? Seeing that we have a documented public history of the output of people in this role, what conclusions can we draw? Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives?
  - lvs 12y ago
    The colloquial term for this is "revolving door."
    - ballard 12y ago
      There's three kinds of corruption: - apparent when there isn't (false positive - mistaken) - apparent when there is (obvious) - not apparent when there is (false negative - not obvious) I'd define corruption as a pattern of putting profit/loss considerations ahead of public interests. Other than personal ethics, this is a really hard thing to control for because it goes to why people want to be public servants and what are their interests/relationships.
      - username223 12y ago
        There's something to be said for lifetime appointments: "we trust you enough to give you this job and pay you enough to be comfortable for the rest of your life. If you clearly violate that trust, we'll impeach you and you will never again be trusted." I could be wrong, but I don't think federal judges and Supreme Court Justices participate in the revolving door. Supreme Court Justices are deeply political, but they're not sell-outs like Chris Dodd.
      - webXL 12y ago
        Is the first kind really corruption then? Corruption can be stopped when voters & consumers have more power than the politicians or their backers. No one can force you to vote a certain way or buy a certain product. You punish "public" "servants" by restricting their power, i.e. voting them out if they break the law or not enforcing the law equally.
- tzs 12y ago
  By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job. Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'm kind of at a loss to comprehend how someone can have held so many positions. [1] It's not all clear that lobbyist is even accurate. He was the head of the largest cable industry trade association. Lobbying was one of the things they did. Calling their executives "lobbyists" would be kind of like calling the head of the American Medical Association a lobbyist. [2] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=533926&privcapId=751092&previousCapId=7668333&previousTitle=TNS%20INC http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    In fairness, the head of the AMA is probably reasonably described as a lobbyist.
    - gavinpc 12y ago
      In fairness to whom?
    - 001sky 12y ago
      Examples of IRC § 501(c)(6) organizations include the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Bar Association, American Medical Association, and National Association of Manufacturers. The AMA is a c6 because: lobbying The organizational definitions in IRC §§ 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) do not contain any explicit limitations on lobbying. The organizations described in these three sections may participate in an unrestricted amount of lobbying so long as the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose. In fact, organizations whose sole activity is lobbying may be recognized under these sections...{etc} Citation> Tax-Exempt Organizations: Political Activity Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements, Order Code RL33377
      - 12y ago
- emehrkay 12y ago
  Chris Dodd spent ~30+ years in congress and now he is the chairman/chief lobbyist for the MPAA. Funny (sad) how that works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd
raverbashing 12y ago
Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder
- devnill 12y ago
  Why? If the ISP's push the issue too hard, the public will be up in arms for net neutrality. If they just push hard enough to keep small companies from competing it will be a win/win for everybody since the ISP's make even more money, and the internet companies get to avoid new players.
  - chc 12y ago
    I'm not sure how you'd categorize Google, Apple and Netflix generally as "ISPs."
    - nardi 12y ago
      "...and the internet companies get to avoid new players." I think you missed that part of GP's comment.
    - devnill 12y ago
      I didn't, but I can see how my wording was misleading. In my eyes I see the ISP's at odds with the companies which require heavy internet usage. Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon/etc don't like Apple/Netflix/Google. If they had their way, they would impose the pay per site model that we are all afraid of. This obviously won't fly so the ISPs throttle the non-isp media providers until they are willing to pay up (as we are seeing with Netflix especially). As long as this process is more or less transparent to the end user, nobody will make a big deal about it and all parties involved will get something positive out of the deal (besides the consumer).
      - digikata 12y ago
        It's a mistake to consider Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon pure ISPs. They are media companies who happen to own last-mile internet pipes into homes in addition to other products which are in direct competition with data which users may want to access through that pipe.
briantakita 12y ago
What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?
- AndrewBissell 12y ago
  Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?
  - growingconcern 12y ago
    Too bad there aren't any.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      You could run for office. Would you appoint cronies?
      - kzrdude 12y ago
        You could run, but how to get the funding to be an actual contender?
        eli 12y ago
        Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship. Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?
        unclebucknasty 12y ago
        Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign. But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture. It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company. So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.
tootie 12y ago
You can't really blame Wheeler. The courts tied his hands.
- beauzero 12y ago
  bs. The courts tied his hands on a surprisingly weak argument. All he had to do was resurrect direct Net Neutrality language and everything would have been fine. He didn't...this administration hasn't raised its regulatory voice, anything. I don't understand how anyone can defend their record. They just killed small internet business.
  - tootie 12y ago
    You have a source for that? I'm not denying just curious. I've seen multiple decisions go against neutrality, but don't fully understand the precedents.

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

by parfe 12y ago

In six months FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will be a VP at NBC Universal/Comcast. Not a bribe; just coincidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC) "Tom Wheeler is the current Chairman of the FCC.[1] Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry." Wow. This looks especially bad for consumers.

lvs 12y ago
Who could possibly have foreseen this?
higherpurpose 12y ago
There should be laws against this sort of stuff. Like you can't work for a company in a related domain for 5 years before and after taking the government job. As it is, it just leads to too much corruption.
- ZachPruckowski 12y ago
  The problem with that is that the only folks qualified for these jobs are folks with some sort of recent related experience, and the only future job that this is revenue-boosting for is in related domains.
  - turing 12y ago
    But that doesn't mean that we have to appoint from within industry. There are probably many academics who would be just as qualified or more than former industry lobbyists. Moreover, these people would probably be more than happy to return to academia and research after serving their tenure.
- pyre 12y ago
  The flip side is that you won't want someone in said position that doesn't know anything about the industry. Do you want a luddite making technology policy, for example. Not that I'm all for regulatory capture or anything.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > Do you want a luddite making technology policy No and that's exactly what we have right now.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    That is not a flip side, it's a false dichotomy, because there is an enormous middle ground there.
    - pyre 12y ago
      I never said it was a dichotomy. Just because I presented an opposing side of an issue does not mean that I'm presenting a dichotomy. One of the reasons that people are pulled from industry to fill these roles is because there is a view that they will understand the issues at play. This is true. We don't want people making policy decisions on issues that they barely understand. At the same time, it becomes the incestuous relationship that we have (aka Regulatory Capture) where there is incentive to make policy decisions that are pro-business while being anti-consumer. There is some sort of a middle-ground to be had, but saying things like "people should not be allowed to hold office if unless they've been out of the industry for at least 5 years" seems a bit naive.
      - rhizome 12y ago
        Well yes, "flip side" implies a dichotomy. What's the middle-ground of a coin's faces? It's not helpful to characterize alternatives as naive, ignorant, or Ludditic. The question is not one of naivety, but of actual policy, which is the stuff that affects all of us. How would the work of an outsider (or statutory redshirt) differ from a revolving-door candidate, one whose foundation is sell side? Seeing that we have a documented public history of the output of people in this role, what conclusions can we draw? Should the incestuous relationship merely be noted, as you do, before dispensing with alternatives?
- lvs 12y ago
  The colloquial term for this is "revolving door."
  - ballard 12y ago
    There's three kinds of corruption: - apparent when there isn't (false positive - mistaken) - apparent when there is (obvious) - not apparent when there is (false negative - not obvious) I'd define corruption as a pattern of putting profit/loss considerations ahead of public interests. Other than personal ethics, this is a really hard thing to control for because it goes to why people want to be public servants and what are their interests/relationships.
    - username223 12y ago
      There's something to be said for lifetime appointments: "we trust you enough to give you this job and pay you enough to be comfortable for the rest of your life. If you clearly violate that trust, we'll impeach you and you will never again be trusted." I could be wrong, but I don't think federal judges and Supreme Court Justices participate in the revolving door. Supreme Court Justices are deeply political, but they're not sell-outs like Chris Dodd.
    - webXL 12y ago
      Is the first kind really corruption then? Corruption can be stopped when voters & consumers have more power than the politicians or their backers. No one can force you to vote a certain way or buy a certain product. You punish "public" "servants" by restricting their power, i.e. voting them out if they break the law or not enforcing the law equally.
tzs 12y ago
By "prior", they mean 30 years ago, at a time when the cable industry was the underdog fighting against the powerful broadcasters, and cable lobbyist [1] was a pro-consumer job. Looking at what he's been involved in since then [2], it's all over the place. There's stuff in cable, stuff in wireless, stuff in phone, co-founder of a company that repairs aerospace components, PBS director, and a bunch of other things. I'm kind of at a loss to comprehend how someone can have held so many positions. [1] It's not all clear that lobbyist is even accurate. He was the head of the largest cable industry trade association. Lobbying was one of the things they did. Calling their executives "lobbyists" would be kind of like calling the head of the American Medical Association a lobbyist. [2] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=533926&privcapId=751092&previousCapId=7668333&previousTitle=TNS%20INC http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
- tptacek 12y ago
  In fairness, the head of the AMA is probably reasonably described as a lobbyist.
  - gavinpc 12y ago
    In fairness to whom?
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Examples of IRC § 501(c)(6) organizations include the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Bar Association, American Medical Association, and National Association of Manufacturers. The AMA is a c6 because: lobbying The organizational definitions in IRC §§ 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) do not contain any explicit limitations on lobbying. The organizations described in these three sections may participate in an unrestricted amount of lobbying so long as the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose. In fact, organizations whose sole activity is lobbying may be recognized under these sections...{etc} Citation> Tax-Exempt Organizations: Political Activity Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements, Order Code RL33377
    - 12y ago
emehrkay 12y ago
Chris Dodd spent ~30+ years in congress and now he is the chairman/chief lobbyist for the MPAA. Funny (sad) how that works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd

raverbashing 12y ago

Google, Apple and Netflix just have to bribe harder

devnill 12y ago
Why? If the ISP's push the issue too hard, the public will be up in arms for net neutrality. If they just push hard enough to keep small companies from competing it will be a win/win for everybody since the ISP's make even more money, and the internet companies get to avoid new players.
- chc 12y ago
  I'm not sure how you'd categorize Google, Apple and Netflix generally as "ISPs."
  - nardi 12y ago
    "...and the internet companies get to avoid new players." I think you missed that part of GP's comment.
  - devnill 12y ago
    I didn't, but I can see how my wording was misleading. In my eyes I see the ISP's at odds with the companies which require heavy internet usage. Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon/etc don't like Apple/Netflix/Google. If they had their way, they would impose the pay per site model that we are all afraid of. This obviously won't fly so the ISPs throttle the non-isp media providers until they are willing to pay up (as we are seeing with Netflix especially). As long as this process is more or less transparent to the end user, nobody will make a big deal about it and all parties involved will get something positive out of the deal (besides the consumer).
    - digikata 12y ago
      It's a mistake to consider Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon pure ISPs. They are media companies who happen to own last-mile internet pipes into homes in addition to other products which are in direct competition with data which users may want to access through that pipe.

briantakita 12y ago

What would it take to get someone who cares about the greater good (not an industry crony) appointed to these key roles?

AndrewBissell 12y ago
Stop electing the politicians who appoint cronies?
- growingconcern 12y ago
  Too bad there aren't any.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    You could run for office. Would you appoint cronies?
    - kzrdude 12y ago
      You could run, but how to get the funding to be an actual contender?
      - eli 12y ago
        Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship. Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?
        unclebucknasty 12y ago
        Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign. But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture. It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company. So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.

tootie 12y ago

You can't really blame Wheeler. The courts tied his hands.

beauzero 12y ago
bs. The courts tied his hands on a surprisingly weak argument. All he had to do was resurrect direct Net Neutrality language and everything would have been fine. He didn't...this administration hasn't raised its regulatory voice, anything. I don't understand how anyone can defend their record. They just killed small internet business.
- tootie 12y ago
  You have a source for that? I'm not denying just curious. I've seen multiple decisions go against neutrality, but don't fully understand the precedents.