Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government United States Your Rights Online

FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist 309

An anonymous reader writes "Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the FCC Commissioners, is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for Comcast-NBC, just four months after approving their merger deal. She refused to put any significant conditions on the merger, saying that the deal would 'bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.' Comcast has released an official statement saying that, 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist

Comments Filter:
  • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @06:42PM (#36100200)

    Why do progressive have to answer for a Republican FCC commissioner?

    In 2009, Baker joined the FCC as one of two Republicans on the five-person commission.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @06:43PM (#36100210)

    When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA. Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.

    Executive order number 2, from Obama's first day on the job, bans lobbying for 2 years by former members of the administration. So no, there is no law, but there is an order in place that gets anyone in the executive branch meeting with her to discuss changes to laws or policies fired.

  • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @06:53PM (#36100312)

    Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

    Yes, let's ignore the last 50 years of US politics and post such a lame comeback.

    Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.

    And a choice quote from Baker:

    “I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.

    She is by no means a "progressive".

  • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @06:58PM (#36100362)

    BTW your comeback is about as lame as saying "Democrats are segregationists" which purposefully ignores decades of political shifting that went on within the political parties. Seriously, lame trolling is lame.

  • by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @06:59PM (#36100370)

    Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.

  • by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @07:10PM (#36100480) Homepage

    If we compare our government today, to what it was in 1900, it's clear that we've gone downhill.

    You're right, if you look at the decade between 1900 and 1910. However, before that you had the Whiskey Ring and Tammany Hall, after that, you had the Newport Sex Scandal and Teapot Dome. The US government has never been completely free of corruption and harking back to some mythical "Golden Age" does no one any good. The only reason why things look worse now is that the dollar amounts have increased - but that's inflation for you...

  • by ryants ( 310088 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @07:21PM (#36100606)
    One idea: Why the FCC should die [cnet.com]

    Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy. What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.

    More details in the link.

  • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2011 @08:07PM (#36101032)

    More details in the link.

    Fascinating. Simply amazing. Selling the airwaves PERMANENTLY. No regulation other than "you own that much of the spectrum".

    Nobody could buy up the bandwidth to prevent competition? One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong. Someone doesn't need to buy it all to have a monopoly. All they need to do is buy all the spectrum of the appropriate kind in the limited geographic area and they'd have a lock on that medium for that area. One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.

    Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other. A sues B, B countersues, both own what they own, neither is "at fault". Both are using their property in the manner authorized by their purchase agreement.

    A buys a TV channel in LA. B buys a TV channel in LA. B decides he likes a new technology for doing TV so he switches. Viewers in LA now need TWO different TVs to watch those two channels, because nobody is there to tell manufacturers they need to support both. Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply, so two isn't the upper limit on incompatible uses.

    The TV I buy has spurious emissions that blanket the other channels. All my neighbors get interference. They have to HIRE someone to come find the source, and then they have to SUE me to get me to shut the TV off. Lawyers make out like bandits.

    The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too. They have to HIRE someone to come find me, and then they have to SUE me to get me to stop. They can't arrest me, there are no regulations! (And yes, that link is explicit in saying that lawsuits are how the issues are resolved.)

    A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular. After a while, everyone figures out that the use of cellular at those specific frequencies is interfering with the public safety users. What to do? The owners own the spectrum. You can't rescind the "license" because there is no license. You can't force anyone to move, they own the spectrum. (And if you think this is far-fetched, google for "nextel" and "rebanding".)

    No, I'm sorry. The FCC still has a purpose. It may not have a right or reason to do some of the things it does, but that doesn't mean the baby needs to go out with the bathwater.

    By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature? HF radio frequencies travel around the globe.

  • by Bespoke ( 1421741 ) on Thursday May 12, 2011 @12:53AM (#36103040)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission [wikipedia.org]
    The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairperson. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Working...