Revolving Door Between Lobbyists, FCC Continues One FCC'er heads to cable, while think tanker heads to FCC... Tipped by ThrowDemsOut 
Part of the continuing problem with the telecom sector (well, most sectors, and not just in the States) is that there's a revolving door between industry lobbyists and regulators, which creates a legion of regulators who simply nod dumbly at corporations as they search for their next paying gig. While that's certainly their individual right, that obviously leaves regular users in the dust, since there's just no money in giving a damn about consumers. FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate, who worked at the FCC until earlier this year, stirred up some geek angst recently by tying World of Warcraft to the college drop out rate. Tate was also a well-lobbied proponent of digital rights management, and often regurgitated most of the broadband industry's talking points. Given her pro-industry views on nearly every subject, it didn't take long for Tate to find a new home at a deregulatory "free market" think tank, cheerleading the industry's belief that we need metered billing for the fairness of the nation's grandmothers. Perhaps more embarrassing is that nobody in the sector really seems to see a problem, or ever really understands how broken things have become. FCC senior legal aide to Democratic Commissioner Copps Rick Chessen this week left the FCC to go become a lobbyist for the cable industry's main lobbying group, the NCTA. In a departing love letter, Commissioner Copps praises Mr. Chessen's abilities, with a small guffaw: "I congratulate Rick Chessen on his appointment to an important private sector position. Its gain is our loss. Rick has a most distinguished record of public service, capped by a stellar performance as Acting Chief of Staff of the FCC from January-June of this year. (I think perhaps he did too good a job and thereby attracted covetous looks from many outside government!) Oh the levity! A skilled employee who knows the inside workings of the FCC will now proceed to the cable industry, where he'll use that knowledge to screw consumers by passing laws that erode their rights and lighten their wallets! Guffaw, indeed. While Copps insists Chessen will bring a "better understanding and cooperation between the sectors," that's generally not how it works. Mr. Chessen will be told to do something (hey Rick, go tell Congress higher prices are patriotic) and he does it -- lest he find himself out of a job. Of course the revolving door goes both ways, with Mr. Chessen possibly returning down the line to act as regulator after years of working for the cable industry's interests. This week also sees the FCC, after weeks of lauding the value of real science, bringing in Scott Wallsten as economics director of its broadband task force. Wallsten has a history with a slew of telecom think tanks, including the AT&T and Verizon funded "Progress and Freedom Foundation." Wallsten recently testified before Congress that the " U.S. does not have a broadband problem." Yeah, that sounds like just the guy needed to fix our very real broadband problems. Wallsten goes on to parrot nearly every telecom lobbyist talking point we've ever come across, including the meme that deregulation leads to telecom Nirvana (that's worked out really well for rural American broadband users over the last decade) and a quick plug for the then nascent, now controversial baby bell-linked Connected Nation. We'll repeat: he's one of the key players in our new broadband plan after the FCC spent the last four months promising they're taking a renewed focus on independent science, not political policy wonkiness. While this endless closed loop of lobbyists, think tank statistic magicians and policy wonks certainly makes for one big happy family, it's a family that is completely oblivious to just how deep the chasm has become between themselves and the average consumer. It's also a family that seemingly cheers this obliviousness while endlessly rewarding conflict of interest with a giggle. The problem is none of it is funny. The country's regulatory system is perhaps irrevocably broken, and despite endless lip service, consumers are not being well represented. As we've mentioned time and time again, there are some very fundamental flaws that need fixing in this country before we can ever truly hope to cure what ails the broadband market. Update: Wallsten, despite our criticism, reached out to us with a very classy e-mail noting he'll soon be updating the FCC broadband blog with additional information on what he'll be doing. We've asked if he wouldn't mind an interview on the issue of broadband penetration which we can hopefully bring you down the road in the national broadband plan's development.
|
 |  |  | | Re: Change We Can Believe In Simple answer NO...
He said what ever he could to get elected. And look at your change now. Oh wait! there isn't any change. | |
|  |  lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Nothing really changes Caveat emptor. | |
|  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | 2 party system, either way we win. | |
|
 | | Is there another vacancy at the FCC? So Tate and Chessen left the FCC for corporate lobbying positions, now former lobbyist Wallsten got appointed to a FCC vacancy, is there another vacant position at the FCC?
Also, what would a consumer advocate's opinion be about Clyburn? | |
|  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Re: Is there another vacancy at the FCC? The two vacant positions were filled.
Clyburn is kind of an unknown, but her pop has traditionally been a Democratic AT&T yes-man. I'll be doubtful if AT&T isn't her primary source of technical knowledge, too, but maybe she'll surprise, given she does have a history as a newspaper operator.
Meredith Baker is the other new Republican, and is generally a carbon copy of the familiar bobbleheadish "deregulation cures cancer" type, who generally have no real insight on technology other than what she's told to parrot by corporate constituents.
If you recall, she was part of an NTIA That boldly proclaimed we'd achieved universal broadband penetration in 2007. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Is there another vacancy at the FCC? You make your Op/Ed seem like only the Cable Industry does this. In return the Telco's do it as well. Showing favoritism today? | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Is there another vacancy at the FCC? I did? Certainly wasn't my intent. I mention AT&T think tanks and AT&T's pet plaything, Connected Nation. It's both parties. It's all companies. It's everywhere. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Is there another vacancy at the FCC? Speaking of Connected Nation, TWC is also part of that. At least in Ohio they are. And MANY MANY Small Co-Op Phone companies. | |
|
 |  | | Tate was a commissioner, but never Senate approved, so she left at the end of the Bush term. Tate's commission position was filled by an Obama appointment.
Chessen was Acting Chief of Staff under Copps, and an adviser to Julius.
Wallsten is in a temporary advisory position specifically looking at economics under the stimulus plan and that job runs out in February and he'll return to his old gig.
There are no open commission seats. | |
|
 | | Mr. Bode, Has it occurred to you that some "lobbyist talking points" are grounded in legitimate economics, and that in such cases it would be the lawyers doing the parroting, not the reverse?
I don't know what would pass for you as "independent science" in this field--telecom policy doesn't end at engineering, of course--but I do know that Dr. Wallsten has a fine reputation among his colleagues in academia, government, and yes, even industry (for whom he by no means a stooge). He will do an excellent job at the FCC. | |
|  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Re: Mr. Bode, Has it occurred to you that some "lobbyist talking points" are grounded in legitimate economics... All garbage think tank stats are somewhere based on legitimate economics. Think tanks generally take legitimate, cherry picked economics and distort it to make political points. I've covered this at length.I don't know what would pass for you as "independent science" in this field... How about, oh, independent science? That would be the opposite of a think tanker pushing policy positions paid for by an organization's constituents.
»www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
Just because it looks like science and smells like science doesn't make it science. I'm sure he's the nicest fellow in the world, but declaring the U.S. "has no broadband problem" while ceaselessly praising investment in the sector speaks volumes.
I mean in his 2007 testimony before Congress as representative of a think tank funded by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon he comes to the conclusion there's no broadband problem, right before he admits all data collection methodology he disagrees with is flawed. Does that sound like science? Because it sounds like just more policy wonk nonsense to me. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Mr. Bode, Karl, you have to put faith in Barack Obama. He's the Great One, He Cares for All, and it is his mission to give everyone broadband. He said so in a campaign speech. You must trust the Chosen One.
Unlike mere mortals like us, Barack doesn't make mistakes. He has a plan that we can't even fathom. We don't know how big it is. The depth of his plans are just far beyond our understanding.
Shhh! This recession, well, it is just part of his grand plan. The FCC is part of his plan. So, you must stick to We Can Change America. All those in the Think Tanks just like in the Drunk Tanks do.
And, Karl, independent thought should not be encouraged unless it is Barack Obama's published talking points. Anything else is heresy. Ted didn't follow the rules. He's dead. Barack doesn't share his glory with anyone. Ted found that out the hard way; Hillary probably soon will. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Mr. Bode, said by cameronsfx:Karl, you have to put faith in Barack Obama. He's the Great One, He Cares for All, and it is his mission to give everyone broadband. He said so in a campaign speech. You must trust the Chosen One. Unlike mere mortals like us, Barack doesn't make mistakes. He has a plan that we can't even fathom. We don't know how big it is. The depth of his plans are just far beyond our understanding. Shhh! This recession, well, it is just part of his grand plan. The FCC is part of his plan. So, you must stick to We Can Change America. All those in the Think Tanks just like in the Drunk Tanks do. And, Karl, independent thought should not be encouraged unless it is Barack Obama's published talking points. Anything else is heresy. Ted didn't follow the rules. He's dead. Barack doesn't share his glory with anyone. Ted found that out the hard way; Hillary probably soon will. Honestly, I am amazed that Obama hasn't completely lost faith in the American public and the American way of doing things after the idiocy of the anti-health reform groups showing up at townhall meetings and elsewhere.
I can't imagine how many times he wakes up in the morning, turns on the news, and just sighs at the stupidity of the public for being so easily swayed by corporations and special interests (and Fox News).
If I were him I would have given up already. I'm very pleased with his tenacity and faith in the common good. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Mr. Bode, said by sonicmerlin:said by cameronsfx:Karl, you have to put faith in Barack Obama. He's the Great One, He Cares for All, and it is his mission to give everyone broadband. He said so in a campaign speech. You must trust the Chosen One. Unlike mere mortals like us, Barack doesn't make mistakes. He has a plan that we can't even fathom. We don't know how big it is. The depth of his plans are just far beyond our understanding. Shhh! This recession, well, it is just part of his grand plan. The FCC is part of his plan. So, you must stick to We Can Change America. All those in the Think Tanks just like in the Drunk Tanks do. And, Karl, independent thought should not be encouraged unless it is Barack Obama's published talking points. Anything else is heresy. Ted didn't follow the rules. He's dead. Barack doesn't share his glory with anyone. Ted found that out the hard way; Hillary probably soon will. Honestly, I am amazed that Obama hasn't completely lost faith in the American public and the American way of doing things after the idiocy of the anti-health reform groups showing up at townhall meetings and elsewhere. I can't imagine how many times he wakes up in the morning, turns on the news, and just sighs at the stupidity of the public for being so easily swayed by corporations and special interests (and Fox News). If I were him I would have given up already. I'm very pleased with his tenacity and faith in the common good. You realize that was total sarcasm, right? | |
|
 |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | said by Karl Bode:I don't know what would pass for you as "independent science" in this field... How about, oh, independent science? I seriously doubt there is such a thing as independent scientific studies, especially studies done about things implemented by industries.
Maybe some pure science studies, like the speed of photons thru fiber vs plastic, can be trusted to not be affected by the funding source.
But most studies, even those done by universities and supposedly unbiased professors, are greatly affected by who is funding them and also by their own prejudices and political beliefs. Just because a study is done by some academic instead of a think tank doesn't mean it is unbiased. Those academics are funded by industries; special interest groups; the government; etc - all with their own axes to grind.
There are plenty of studies done on drugs, for example, by universities and medical centers. Independent, right?? Hardly, as shown recently that a huge percentage of them were ghost written by the pharmaceutical industry.
So, think tank or independent? Is there really a difference? I don't think so. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |  Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Re: Mr. Bode, So, think tank or independent? Is there really a difference? I don't think so. You're horribly, horribly confused. Then again, so is American culture. The medical industry and FDA is similarly conflicted over what's real science and what's highly refined manufactured bullshit. The fact that nobody, even yourself, a highly educated executive retiree, can tell the difference between lobbyist schlock and independent research is somewhat of a testament to its effectiveness. | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, said by Karl Bode:The fact that nobody, even yourself, a highly educated executive retiree, can tell the difference between lobbyist schlock and independent research is somewhat of a testament to its effectiveness. Or maybe there really is no such thing as independent research. Hard sciences are easy to prove or disprove, everything else is subject to interpretation. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Mr. Bode, Yes, and there's no such thing as truth. Truth isn't really a fixed pillar, it's a movable, flexible thing you can shift if you just yell loudly enough. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, Now you're finally starting to understand.
BTW, you seem a little off your game today with the number of post edits. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Mr. Bode, My personally hired think tank data says I'm operating at 100% capacity, thank you very much. My personal PR flaks will support this. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | said by openbox9:Or maybe there really is no such thing as independent research. Hard sciences are easy to prove or disprove, everything else is subject to interpretation. Please be quiet. You really know nothing about science in general or how independent research works. It's truly embarrassing listening to you talk about it. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, Now that, I find very funny. Any time you want to debate real science, let me know. Considering that hard sciences are relatively indisputable, I don't expect to receive a response anytime soon. | |
|
 |  |  |  2 edits | said by golfnsun : But most studies, even those done by universities and supposedly unbiased professors, are greatly affected by who is funding them and also by their own prejudices and political beliefs. Just because a study is done by some academic instead of a think tank doesn't mean it is unbiased. Those academics are funded by industries; special interest groups; the government; etc - all with their own axes to grind.
Accusing academic research institutions of special interest bias is the height of idiocy and nonsense. You yourself have never been involved in research, and have absolutely no idea how brutal peer-reviewers are when evaluating one's research.
quote: There are plenty of studies done on drugs, for example, by universities and medical centers. Independent, right?? Hardly, as shown recently that a huge percentage of them were ghost written by the pharmaceutical industry.
If you actually paid attention to the field, you would realize falsified or distorted studies funded primarily by industry organizations are routinely debunked or flat out ignored by the scientific community. | |
|
 |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | "free market" or "corporate rights"?
So why will I be going away in cuffs if me and my friends take the pickup out and try install some poles and fiber (no PUC permit, no PUC franchise, no EIS, no ROW room by law, no insurance, no local permit, no local franchise (depends on state law), no detail cop eating donuts, no county fire, electrical, and building inspector, no paying $500 an hour for contracted civil engineer by county to approve your blueprints, etc)? | |
|  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, Because you didn't follow the ordinances of the local municipality and/or regulatory body. If you obtain your permits, achieve necessary franchise agreements, lease space in the ROW, pay appropriate insurance as required by law, outrun the cop eating donuts, ensure you receive necessary inspections, and have the city/county engineers approve your work, you can install your poles and/or trench your cable. Free market for everyone willing to abide by the rules. | |
|  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: Mr. Bode, Free market for everyone willing to abide by the rules. Said freedom expands exponentially if you have the financial power to have rules and laws changed to personally suit you... | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 1 edit | Re: Mr. Bode, No, I mean free market for anyone will to abide by the process and pertinent regulations.
Since you edited your post. Why do you need to change laws to personally suit you to be able to enjoy a free market? | |
|
 |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 1 edit | said by openbox9: Free market for everyone willing to abide by the rules. What if your municipality made a "rule" saying only entities of a net worth of $10 million dollars can own personal and real property in the municipality, all others will be fined, then arrested? Will you abide by it? is that still your "free market"?
The rules that kill it and keep incumbents in power, who often used taxpayer subsidies, waivers, eminent domain, or low/free interest loans to build their networks, none of which any competitor can have today. | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, If indeed such a restriction existed, then yes, I would abide by it....while working to change/amend the law. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, said by openbox9:If indeed such a restriction existed, then yes, I would abide by it....while working to change/amend the law. If people with your mindset ruled the world, we would all still be serfs giving away our first born son to the lord's army, and your lord gets your wife's virginity before marriage. Reform always happens voluntarily by the power, only rebellion and revolution make changes. The USA is a 2 party republic (might as well call it a single party state, both are bought and paid for equally), not a democracy (except for California). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, You're right, we should blindly ignore the rule of law and do whatever we damn well please. That oughta help society affect change for the better. Yes, the US is a federal republic...I've never stated otherwise. We aren't a "2 party republic", although we do have to primary political parties towering over the other ideologies. Not sure the relevance of the Government 101. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by openbox9:Because you didn't follow the ordinances of the local municipality and/or regulatory body. If you obtain your permits, achieve necessary franchise agreements, lease space in the ROW, pay appropriate insurance as required by law, outrun the cop eating donuts, ensure you receive necessary inspections, and have the city/county engineers approve your work, you can install your poles and/or trench your cable. Free market for everyone willing to abide by the rules. Then such market is inherently not "free", because there are artificial barriers to entry that prevent anyone and everyone from entering it.
Please, stop bandying about the term "free market". You obviously have no idea what the hypothetical concept even means. | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: Mr. Bode, Are you incapable of anything other than smack talk or insult? You have a tendency to come into debates, throw out a few jabs with little actual contribution, and then run away.said by sonicmerlin:Then such market is inherently not "free", because there are artificial barriers to entry that prevent anyone and everyone from entering it. I'll grant you that free markets don't truly exist in the classical definition, but nonetheless, it's a relatively level playing field. Perhaps you would prefer to choose a different term, or maybe even create a new one? Or maybe you would prefer that we actually remove the regulations that prevent a truly free market? The fact of the matter is that all entrants to a market face the same rules and regulations. | |
|
 | | Wallsten and Chessen I have know both of these guys for more than 10 years. I do not agree with nearly everything that they say. However, I have incredible respect for each of them -- I have seen where they both do the opposite of what you naively insinuate. While Rick has been in government the entire time I have known him (and done a very good job), Scott has been on the outside. He does his work and says what he thinks. Scott has taken many positions resulting from his analysis of the data that are contrary to the positions of funders of his think tanks. These counter-examples show his integrity.
To question his integrity just because YOU disagree with his assessment of the data is more disturbing to me. Instead of name-calling, you should support your case with analysis like Scott did in his papers. Once you examine the data, you will find that Scott is not a simple shill for AT&T or cable. | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 | | Wallsten worth a close look Karl
Scott's a friend and proving one of the best economists in D.C. The paper you reported from was 2007 and he would now find it weak. He comes from the "market" set and that paper retweeted a lot of uninteresting stuff. He always phrased things in D.C. lingo and as you made clear are mistaken when interpreted as ordinary English. His main theme as presented - we do not have severe broadband problems - is untrue and badly presented. His meaning in DCspeak, I believe, was that the U.S. ranking in penetration didn't prove we were far behind the large Europeans, which is actually true. We've fallen from far ahead of almost everyone to seriously behind the best and among the middle of the pack of large Western countries. I think that demonstrates pretty bad policy; Scott's take then was it wasn't enough of an emergency for the government to step in. Both of us know that for some - extreme rural areas, most of the poor - things are unacceptable.
Since then, I've been at several events with him and exchanged ideas. He spent more effort looking for the facts on this than any other pundit in D.C. By 2009 at the Columbia event, his analysis - specifically including Connect Kentucky, was very different.
Few of us learn and so repeat our mistakes. Scott has gone far beyond his thoughts then. Dave Burstein | |
|  nitzanPremium,VIP join:2008-02-27 kudos:2 | Revolving Doors should be illegal. But oh wait.. the guys who are supposed to make it illegal are the same guys it benefits.... | |
|  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Karl's gettin' good at this writin' stuff "It's also a family that seemingly cheers this obliviousness while endlessly rewarding conflict of interest with a giggle."
I really enjoy your turn of phrase, Karl. You're getting entirely too good at writing these pithy news pieces! I eagerly consume every sentence, including articles I disagree with! (No disagreeing with this one, tho.) | |
|  axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | so, which telco did Martin end up with I'm betting AT&T, does anyone know? We gave him plenty of flak for siding with telcos and coming down on cable. | |
|
 | |
|
|