I don't want this story should get buried and/or ignored, since it relates to mass media, who have been suspiciously quiet about this latest appointment...
>> It's not just the fact that Wheeler's a former lobbyist that has watchdogs shaken up. He's a former lobbyist who's sympathized with the telecom giants in the past. On his blog, Wheeler signaled in 2011 that he would be open to letting AT&T acquire T-Mobile, in what was largely viewed as a move that would send the merged companies into antitrust territory. However, some haters probably missed the part of the blog post where he explains how he would only do so, if the government introduced a slew of new regulations on AT&T.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are qualified for a job as big as FCC chairman have ties to the telecom industry. It's the folks that have worked on the problems that the president wants to solve in various different capacities. Would he nominate a transportation secretary who's never dealt with major transportation companies? No. So a FCC chairman who doesn't possess intimate knowledge of what these telecom giants want would actually be a silly choice. <<
-- so this article seems to think the wise thing to do in appointees is go to the industry that would benefit from favorable regulatory attitudes.
I might put it more cynically: "who knows the hen house better than the fox"?
To my mind this is no better than appointing Monsanto executives to the FDA. How's that been working out?
Why this needs exposure: in 1996 when the Telecommunications Act gave away enormous business deals to the broadcast industry, begetting broadcast behemoths like Clear Channel owning twelve hundred radio stations, the entire mass media system spent a grand total of nineteen minutes covering a story that would change the face of mass media broadcasting (in other words, they buried a story that they stood to benefit from as long as it went through unnoticed). Let's keep our eye on the ball this time.
What say you?
>> It's not just the fact that Wheeler's a former lobbyist that has watchdogs shaken up. He's a former lobbyist who's sympathized with the telecom giants in the past. On his blog, Wheeler signaled in 2011 that he would be open to letting AT&T acquire T-Mobile, in what was largely viewed as a move that would send the merged companies into antitrust territory. However, some haters probably missed the part of the blog post where he explains how he would only do so, if the government introduced a slew of new regulations on AT&T.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are qualified for a job as big as FCC chairman have ties to the telecom industry. It's the folks that have worked on the problems that the president wants to solve in various different capacities. Would he nominate a transportation secretary who's never dealt with major transportation companies? No. So a FCC chairman who doesn't possess intimate knowledge of what these telecom giants want would actually be a silly choice. <<
-- so this article seems to think the wise thing to do in appointees is go to the industry that would benefit from favorable regulatory attitudes.
I might put it more cynically: "who knows the hen house better than the fox"?
To my mind this is no better than appointing Monsanto executives to the FDA. How's that been working out?
Why this needs exposure: in 1996 when the Telecommunications Act gave away enormous business deals to the broadcast industry, begetting broadcast behemoths like Clear Channel owning twelve hundred radio stations, the entire mass media system spent a grand total of nineteen minutes covering a story that would change the face of mass media broadcasting (in other words, they buried a story that they stood to benefit from as long as it went through unnoticed). Let's keep our eye on the ball this time.
What say you?
