FCC Chief: Net Neutrali-wha? > Disband this circus

Disband this circus

I hate to burst your bubble, but broadband is not the only potato on the FCC plate. What seems to escape many here is that the FCC is not run, day by day, by the commissioners, who are political appointees and MAY shape the general direction they proceed in.

The people who DO run the FCC day to day are the people who run the various bureaus and the engineering staff.

This is the same dumb mentality that holds that president Bush is on top of every little thing that happens, has a evil master plan to conquer the world, all his staff just marches in lockstep and only has to issue orders and it is done. Rediculous. People with this mentality simply have no clue how the government-or, anything else for that matter,-runs.

In this case, you are assuming the commissioners are tech geniuses, bought by the evil telcos and marching in lockstep to orders from corporate headquarters-again, rediculous-and all they have to do is snap their fingers and it is so. Yet, anyone who has actually dealt with the FCC in any real manner knows that it is not the commissioners that make the day to day decisions. It is the people who run the wireless telecommunications bureau and the various enforcement bureaus, etc.

Decisions made by the FCC, for the most part, are remarkably non political and even handed. It has allways been so. One needs to ask onesself how, if the commissioners are running things, does the FCC manage to do the technical work it does and come to decisions consistentl that have worked as intended for decades as the commissioners come and go?

Understandably, one is angry when a decision goes against ones wishes, however, that does not mean that it is the wrong decision IN THE LONGER RUN.

"FCC is FAR from being non-politcal or even handed."

Really? You couldn't prove that by me and I have been around watching what they do for over 30 years.

"No, it used to be."

It still is. All one needs to do is actually go to the FCC website and rummage around, since they post their decisions and very detailed reasonings behind them, instead of having a hissy fit over what the FCC chairman says. Chairman powell said they would push BPL too, yet it hasn't happened. In fact, that initiative was stalled even before he left.

"Obviously the asking one never worked in such position if he dares to ask such a silly question - policy decisionas are ALWAYS made by the leaders, rest of the satff - the career personnel, the technical personnel etc - usually prepare and execute, that's it."

This is, perhaps, true in the corporate world. However, the FCC is not the corporate world. It is a technically oriented agency with a staff that has been around for decades, with a set of "commissioners" That serve 5 years at most, at the pleasure of the president.

Which means they change relitively rapidly and espouse the current stance of the executive, but, in the end, have little or no actual effect on what actually happens. It is the STAFF who make the actual rulings and decisions, as you would know if you actually bothered to go to their website and go below the fluffery.

"You better read the article first next time - there wasn't any "decision", merely an expression of the current state of mind of this @sshole. However it is obvious that it isn't hte right direction for the customers, even a 10ys old kid could tell you this."

The word decision in my post was used within the context of my post and did not referr to any specific decision of the FCC. Yes, we are talking about the opinion of the current chairman of the FCC here and you know he's an asshole....how? Do you know him personally, or, are you just upset because he disagrees with you and has a different viewpoint?

It might be "obvious" to you that it "isn't the right direction for the customers", but not so "obvious" to others who can actually think, know what they are talking about and who do not react to such thigs with emotional hysteronics.

And, a 10 year old kid could not tell any of us this, because he would not have the reasoning powers and experience that adults have to form and express such opinions.

I dont know if you are familliar with my previously stated definitions of a intellectually bankrupt mind, but I daresay your post comes close. Did it ever occur to you that there ARE actually people who know what they are talking about and who ARE able to actually think? If you're going to hang with the intellectuals, perhaps you should learn that skill?

reply to Fatal Vector

Re: Disband this circus

reply to kamm
Ummm, perhaps you should fuckin read first instead of posting silly crap?

From 2003:
»www.usatoday.com/money/companies···ll_x.htm

"Powell says the tighter rules are outmoded as cable threatens free broadcast TV, but, "(Congress) makes the rules, and we implement them. I think that's completely fine." Yet he ripped the legislative proposals as hollow because they don't offer guidance on ownership regulation. "It is, in some ways, an anti-vote," he says.

And when critics rail against big media, "I'm not sure what problem people are trying to solve. I don't have the sense I don't hear every viewpoint from the left to the right on Fox, MSNBC and CNBC."

Powell says he can "absolutely see the argument" that easing media limits further could give too much influence to a handful of behemoths, but insists his changes are moderate. "It's an amazingly gradual, modest package. The difference between 35 and 45 (%) is the network might own five more stations in the United States. So no, I do not think that's the end of democracy."

But Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project notes the national cap was 25% before Congress raised it in 1996. "This is a very substantial increase. Chairman Powell persistently trivializes the heartfelt concerns of the public."

Schwartzman, some say, dealt Powell his most stinging defeat when he persuaded a U.S. appeals court this month to block all the FCC's new regulations from taking effect until it rules on a broader challenge to them. Washington media lawyer Christy Kunin says the stay indicates the court believes the challenge has at least "some merit."

But Powell contends: "The court's decision has been radically exaggerated. It has merely said, 'Let's chill out,' and gives us a fair chance to consider" the case.

He also dismisses complaints that he could have handled the media ruling with more sensitivity, perhaps heeding calls to delay the vote another 30 days to give the public a chance to comment.

"The commissioners who asked for the 30 days weren't going to change their vote in any way."

Powell concedes the drumbeat of protest against his media plan "is intense. I'm a human being." But, "I don't personalize policy."

The son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Michael Powell is a former Army officer, Justice Department official and antitrust lawyer who is deemed a rigorous intellectual analyst but short on the political skills required of an FCC chairman. He admits discomfort with the swirl of politics. "I like to think of the agency as more judicial than legislative. And when it gets infected with whose constituency is going to win, I don't like that. It's very unsatisfying when you realize somebody's voting a certain way for political reasons."

Powell cites deregulation of the wireless industry and promotion of high-definition TV among his biggest successes. He denies rumors he's poised to step down. There's nothing imminent. The criticism, he adds, "is not fun. But it's what you're forced to endure to be successful in this job." "

Wow, look at that! He's clearly using singular, isn't he? He's defending HIS point. Where did your staff go, ehem?

2005:
»www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21···rom_fcc/

"Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell is stepping down after serving four years as chairman and approximately six years as a commissioner.

A strong proponent of deregulation, Powell leaves behind a mixed bag of achievements. While he has done much to promote broadband adoption and to protect the growing VoIP industry from regulatory overhead, he has an ideological streak which persuades him that pretty much anything industry wants is automatically good.

Indeed, sometimes it is, as we have seen with VoIP regulation. On the other hand, Powell has behaved as if media consolidation could not possibly have a downside.

Powell supported many good things, such as allowing consumers to keep their telephone numbers when switching carriers, the establishment of a national do-not-call registry to deter telemarketers, and a push to open up more bandwidth to private use.

But he also supported the so-called broadcast flag, a scheme making it illegal to sell digital TV receivers without copy protection technology. While always spoken of in terms of piracy prevention, this sort of technology promises to give content owners and distributors an extraordinary degree of control over the ways in which media can be used by those who pay for it.

Perhaps his worst policy has been to promote further ownership consolidation of TV, newspapers, and radio networks. Powell's dismissive comments that the internet and cable TV provide enough diversity of content could not have been made without full knowledge that the eight or so media behemoths that own virtually all of TV, radio, newspapers, book publishers, music labels, and movie studios also own the cable TV networks and a great deal of online content as well.

In all, most people will find something to regret, and something to celebrate, in Powell's departure. There has been no word about who the President might choose to replace him. Certainly, he now has an opportunity to do a lot worse than Powell. ®"

Oooops, it's talking about the Powell-legacy! Ooops, it's 10 ys together. Hmmmm...

Now please, tell us, how is that you, people, 'in the know' were completely and utterly dead (ummm Fatally? ) clueless when you claimed such stupid thing like policies have been made by staff etc, hmm?

At least read up before you try to act like somebody has any idea - it's well known that these top dogs are heavily leaning this way or that way.
It's also well-known Powell-era was VERY FAR from being unbiased. Even Reps were rallying against the truly corrupt nature of Powell's reign at the end.
Last but not least please forget this silly - and obviously clueless - idea about the 'strong' staff and 'weak' chairman. It just makes you look silly, nothing else, no matter how 'nice' you're trying to depict this idiotic idea.