Julius Genachowski To Head FCC 177
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US President-elect, Barack Obama, has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. This appears to bode well for a forward-looking (or at least clued) Internet policy, since Genachowski is credited with running Obama's internet-based election campaign, and, according to 'Fierce Telecom,' 'has an impressive record working with technology and communications companies: He was Chief of Business Operations at InterActiveCorp; he's co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures, which currently backs 11 internet-based start-ups, and he's also served on the boards of numerous technology and new media companies, including The Motley Fool, Web.com, Truveo, and Rapt'."
Re:Sweet victory (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis, then joined up as a high-ranking member of Socialist International, and has a husband who's head of an energy-policy lobbying firm...
I mean, sheesh. The word "graft" has taken on an entirely new meaning and Obama's not even sworn in yet. First the MafiAA guy, then the Socialist in a "new position" designed to be sure she doesn't have to go through Senate confirmation hearings... what's next?
What's his stance on censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is still just one person (Score:2, Interesting)
Not So Fast (Score:4, Interesting)
You, and the no-doubt +5 Insightful modding to follow will lead to crushed expectations.
1. This poor bloke doesn't stand a chance against the telco's lobbying. His years running VC are not comparable to years running government, defending attacks from the Telcos and Cable Co's.
2. Government changes very slowly. This is part of the human condition more than anything else. One guy, even with the temporary backing of an Administration doesn't have much to work with.
3. The political system we have will create a great deal of friction preventing it from changing. Telco's and cable co's will screw this guy out of a job if he runs too far afield of their goals to capture the media distribution market.
Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.
Re:Credentials aren't so hot (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan [barackobama.com], the motto of which is "Open Government, Open Networks, Open Market." And he's an advocate for 'Net Neutrality.
The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy. Technology policy, but policy nonetheless. It is a regulatory body [wikipedia.org]. Nothing more, nothing less.
I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.
Crashing this Obama parade! (Score:4, Interesting)
You guys are all giving each other high fives over Obama's FCC pick, and what you do not get is that commercially, he's going to be a very strong IP guy and a lot of you are going to be disappointed in that.
Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?
I see a lot of media companies that did Obama a lot of favors, and Obama's bill for them is coming due. I would expect to see an Obama administration have -stricter- regulation than Bush's administration ever did, all to protect the big city newspapers, publishing houses, record companies, movie studios and other enterprises that form the economic backbone of what we would call the "liberal economy". I would expect to see increased liability on telcos for copyrighted content, a federal bureacracy to handle copyright claims, greater pressure on the rest of the world to get on board, and what's France going to do, when their own newspapers, movie studios, and more, are telling them to do the same thing. Bush had to sell out to Exxon and Halliburton, but Obama is a sellout to Time Warner and the New York Times. Every President, regardless of political party, has a business constituency that they whore out too, and in Obama's case, its the publishing industry. Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.
Re:What's his stance on censorship? (Score:2, Interesting)
No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.
How about Schumer and Pelosi [broadcastingcable.com]? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman [freerepublic.com]? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform [freedomforum.org] in 2000. Oh, then there's this article [humanevents.com] quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin [thehill.com] has also advocated its reinstatement.
Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.
Re:Not So Fast (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.
Don't worry, I won't be. I'm aware of all the real-life problems you bring up and more. No matter who is in what position, there's a huge political machine to be dealt with.
So I'm not expecting it to go well. But with someone heading the FCC who doesn't seem bound and determined to fuck us over, I'm confident it will at least go better.
Re:Sweet victory (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis,
Amazing the anti-science idiocy that grows on this site like weeds. "95% of peer-reviewed papers on the subject say one thing, but the remaining 5% are the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and action on the other 95% has no scientific basis!"
Venture capitalists (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a venture capitalist in any appointed position in what is supposed to be a representative democracy does not strike me as very wise. Whose interests exactly do we expect such a person to represent? Certainly not mine nor those of any of my friends and family....
Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
I see what you're saying, but give hippies their due. After all, the main gist of your argument for why violence is so great is that in the end it gets you laid, and let's be honest here that's the ultimate motivation for all the would-be Ghengis Khans and their legions. But the hippies were up to their necks in "free love", without the need for all that violence and the dangers of the resulting counter-violence. Their biggest risks were a bad acid trip and a case of the clap -- gotta take antibiotics, bummer man! You think tin-pot dictators like Saddam would have gone to all the trouble of oppressing half their people, making enemies of all their neighbors, risking constant assassination just to be able to order any women he wanted into his bed, if he could have gotten all the play he wanted just by saying "Hey wanna come to my drum circle, we've got a hookah?" I don't think so.
The world has changed, and we never see anything like it again, but for a brief period there, peace was tha shit.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Interesting)
Eric Holder was Janet Reno's right hand man that went on a rampage against all forms of private firearms ownership.
Holder filed an amicus brief in support of DC's right to regulate gun ownership in DC vs. Heller. That's clearly a liberal position, but it's also far from going on a rampage against all forms of private gun ownership.
He also supports closing Gitmo.
Those positions are well within the mainstream wing of the Democratic platform. You can disagree with them (and I do disagree with the stance on gun control), but trying to paint him (or any of the nominees for major cabinet/advisory positions) as "extreme left wingers" is completely polemical.
I'm not saying he's a staunch conservative. He's very far from being some crazy lefty. The guy's career in public service started with a Ronald Reagan appointment to Superior Court.
The media consensus has been similar, whether you look at FOX News or the Washington Post or sources ideologically in between.
FOX News wrote: "Barack Obama's Cabinet lineup, completed Friday with a month to spare, sends a signal that the fresh-faced president-elect will lean on experienced hands and moderate voices to steer the nation through turbulent times."
CBS's Bob Schieffer wrote "...a lot of people said this is going to be a very extremist president and all that, that he's a very liberal Democrat, but as we have seen in appointment after appointment, he's hewing to the center. He's picking a bunch of flaming moderates here".
Politico wrote "President-elect Barack Obama spent the campaign fighting the notion that he's an unabashed liberal. Now he can point to Exhibit A: a Cabinet that's a middle-of-the-roader's dream".
The Washington Post wrote: "But many of Obama's other picks reflect his apparent preference for practical-minded centrists who have straddled big policy debates rather than staking out the strongest pro-reform positions. Their reputations as moderates have won Obama plaudits from even some Republicans"