Obama to Name Tom Wheeler, a Former Lobbyist, to Head FCC

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323982704578455000613034748.html

by yekko • 13 years ago

78 65 13 years ago

online.wsj.com

galectin• 13 years ago

They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney that lobbyists would be put in charge of the internet.

josh2600• 13 years ago

It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Internet.

numo16• 13 years ago

> It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Government.

FTFY

w1ntermute2• 13 years ago

There was nothing false about that. It was your mistake for assuming that voting for Obama wouldn't also result in lobbyists being put in charge.

As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. It's like expecting your local cable monopoly to be a better ISP because they have to compete with your local telephone monopoly for Internet subscribers.

Samuel_Michon2• 13 years ago

I completely agree. Even though there are many political parties[1] in the US, there are only two that have the funds and mindshare to win presidential elections.

I like that independents like Bernie Sanders[2] and Angus King[3] manage to get into the senate, it provides a little bit of hope for change.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_th...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King

mseebach6• 13 years ago

Democracies tend to gravitate towards a binary choice, regardless of the actual number of parties. This happens all the time in Europe.

Don't mistake the fact that we have social policies different from those in the US for diversity, it is very much a cross-party consensus.

ck22• 13 years ago

This notion that each industry knows best how to regulate itself keeps ending us up in one disaster after another.

duncan_bayne• 13 years ago

This notion that industry needs regulating keeps ending us up in one disaster after another.

Who was it who said "when buying and selling are legislated, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators?"

supercanuck• 13 years ago

How would the free market prevent the Fertilizer plant from exploding and killing all those people?

DArcMattr• 13 years ago

P.J. O'Rourke said it. Nothing else explains regulatory capture so succinctly.

kalleboo2• 13 years ago

That would be an interesting experiment - fully unregulated airwaves. Imagine AT&T jamming Verizon's 3G signal, private transmitter hijacking terminals, etc.

Kroem3r• 13 years ago

I get the point of view. I disagree with it, but even more, I find it jarring to apply a faith-based approach to thinking about these things in lieu of a critical assessment one. As if it were sufficient to cut through all the tangle and uncertainty with, like, "Daniel 11:3 'And a great king shall stand up ...'" and think that was case and point.

What's more, it's hardly clear that you've got this proverb the right way around: It seems as likely that corrupt legislators create regulation to enrich them and their kind, as opposed to well-intentioned regulation leading to the corruption of legislators. I've cut out the middle - corrupt legislators creating corrupt legislation - which is what we actually have and also the sort of murk that doesn't lend itself to witticism.

jacoblyles2• 13 years ago

The most regulated industries in America are banking, medicine, and education. It seems to be doing a good job.

Meanwhile internet technology is among the least regulated. Someone needs to do something to ensure a vibrant competitive landscape.

skore• 13 years ago

> banking, medicine

So either this is extreme sarcasm or extremely hilarious in a laugh-gets-stuck-in-your-throat kind of way.

livnev2• 13 years ago

Yes, your comment is witty, but I think it's critically flawed. Firstly, medicine and education should be public services, in the sense that their management should have the imperative of increasing living conditions for the populace rather than generating capital. It can also be added that arguably, the purpose of banking is to increase living standards, instead of being a business for those that control it.

Secondly, you're implying that the correlation between regulation and 'success' in those sectors implies causation between the two. Do you really think that the problem with health care in the US is that it's not regulated ENOUGH? Similarly, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that education should be privatised? And lastly, do you think that the success of internet technology is a result of the fact that it has been less regulated than other industries (I'm not saying that it SHOULD be regulated, I'm just questioning whether or not that is a crucial factor)?

If that was intended only as a joke I understand, however I think it's important to think seriously about these things if we are to every try to fix them.

EDIT: typo

nano111• 13 years ago

if the banks and wallstreet had it their way, there would not be many regulations

rayiner4• 13 years ago

America has the world's preeminent financial sector and medical sector, and when you adjust for demographics its K12 education sector is in line with that of western European countries, while its university system is again preeminent in the world.

The situation in the US is not quality, but access. But the same phenomenon exists for internet technology (e.g. The digital divide).

yekko2• 13 years ago

Corruption USA style.

greenyoda• 13 years ago

Here's the story at the LA Times, which is not behind a paywall:

Obama to nominate venture capitalist Thomas Wheeler to head FCC

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-wheeler-20130501,0...

rayiner4• 13 years ago

It's interesting what the headline chooses to mention. He was a lobbyist from 1979-1984, but he's also a venture capitalist and entrepreneur who has founded multiple telecommunications companies: "Mr. Wheeler is a managing director at Core Capital Partners, a Washington investment firm with $350 million under management. He has helped to oversee the firm’s investments in an array of start-ups and small- to mid-size technology companies, including GoMobo, Twisted Pair Solutions and Jacked. He also is a member of the board of EarthLink, an Internet service provider that competes aggressively with Verizon and AT&T." (From the NYT article).

The NYT article is a bit better: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/business/technology-invest...

Forbes has more info: http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-wheeler.

BusinessWeek has a more complete profile: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...

He has a blog/website: http://www.mobilemusings.net.

greghinch• 13 years ago

Sadly, the WSJ has just another soundboard for Rupert Murdoch's FUD. Doing whatever they can do to make a story more polarizing.

CrazedGeek2• 13 years ago

(EDIT: Disregard the following, see ordinary's reply) Not that I disagree about the WSJ, but it seems that the lobbyist part of the headline was added by the submitter.

fuzzix• 13 years ago

> "He also is a member of the board of EarthLink, an Internet service provider that competes aggressively with Verizon and AT&T."

Is that the Scientologist ISP?

pudquick• 13 years ago

The company was founded by several Scientologists, yes - Sky Dayton, Reed Slatkin, and Kevin M. O'Donnell.

It's my understanding that while they were directly involved, some of the published media the corporation put out would sometimes have a 'column' where Sky ended up mentioning Scientology in some way. However, none of them are involved in the company any more.

The company went through some major restructuring, leadership and organization-wise, in 2006-2007. They're a public company with a board of directors (of which Tom is now a part). Not sure how much Scientology has any impact or connection (financial or otherwise) to it any more, so I'm not sure calling it the 'Scientologist ISP' is still accurate.

I know that the connections/beliefs of the founders - and the fact that Reed Slatkin was convicted of a massive ponzi scam - has put Earthlink on many scam/cult watch lists semi-permanently.

If you're attempting to draw a connection between Tom and Scientology, though, I'm not sure I follow.

altcognito• 13 years ago

I would also point out that on the face of it, Lobbyists aren't evil. They are effectively part of your representation in government and should be well-informed in their special interest.

What is evil is when they are granted inappropriate influence over the legislation, regulation and appropriation.

And that problem pretty much starts with campaign donations but has roots in other areas as well.

Qualman2• 13 years ago

Does being a former lobbyist make him inherently evil, though? I'm no fan of lobbying from any aspect, but it's shallow to judge his priorities off of this one piece of his career -- especially with the article highlighting his history in favor of the government regulating telecom.

mseebach6• 13 years ago

As a lobbyist, he headed the National Cable Television Association, and later the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. Why might cable TV operators, cell operators and Internet providers would pay someone good money to lobby for more government regulation? What business purpose could that possibly serve?

snikolic• 13 years ago

To be fair, those were actually fairly progressive and disruptive industries when was involved in lobbying for them.

Qualman2• 13 years ago

These are irrelevant questions, as the article specifically states that he is in support of regulation:

"...Tom Wheeler, appeared open in 2011 to letting wireless giant AT&T Inc. acquire T-Mobile USA...But he had a price. In exchange for a $39 billion merger, AT&T would have had to agree to a slew of new regulations, according to an idea Mr. Wheeler laid out at the time on his personal blog."

If you dig into said personal blog, you can find the following article [1], where Mr. Wheeler summarizes his reasoning:

"Now we have the perverse situation where a government win means less regulation while a victory for the corporate interest opens the door to more."

It is clear through his explanation that his approval was meant only as leverage for harsher regulations on the duopoly of wireless TelCos. That is a pretty solid indicator of where his allegiance lies. Likewise, if you meander around his blog, you'll see lots of musings in favor of Net Neutrality.

[1] http://www.mobilemusings.net/2011/09/awaiting-final-aria.htm...

kislayverma• 13 years ago

Hope. Change. Flushed.

Obama to Name Tom Wheeler, a Former Lobbyist, to Head FCC

Related Stories