 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to kamm
Re: Disband this circus 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. |
