Slashdot Log In
GAO Report Slams FCC
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Oct 03, 2007 03:45 PM
from the gold-makes-the-rules dept.
from the gold-makes-the-rules dept.
eldavojohn writes "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made a report available today that was requested a year ago by a Democratic senator that finds the Federal Communications Commissions has been favoring lobbyists a little too much. 'The report says that some people at the commission warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote. Typically, the commission chairman circulates an item for vote three weeks before a meeting. Under the rules of the FCC, meeting agendas are published one week before a vote is scheduled. Once the agenda is published lobbying is banned. The report says that the two-week window allows lobbyist plenty of time to "maximize their impact."'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Government & Business (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Government & Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Government & Business (Score:4, Interesting)
Even the teenagers are sick of the clearchannel 1 song between 15 minute commercials power blocks. also several of the FM stations locally that clearchannel turned into robo radio stations have such low bandwidth mp3's in their playback pool that the stations sound WORSE than the weather channels on XM and sirius.
NAB needs to be disbanded, Clearchannel needs to reap what they sow by being decimated by the satellite offerings. You know that free radio has problems when you can drive people quickly to the pay channels.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
W00t! Monopolies offer choice!
Re: (Score:2)
Lets suppose that they do merge, and they obtain this so-called monopoly you claim. Sirus/XM raises their prices to $50/mo and reduces programming by 50%. What will happen? Their 12 million listeners will dwindle down to less than a million, and people would go back to listening to terrestrial radio and iPods. You fail to realize that satellite radio competes with terrestrial radio, Internet radio, portable music players (like the iPod). Sirius/XM will still have to keep their prices low and maintain good p
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to realize that satellite radio competes with terrestrial radio, Internet radio, portable music players (like the iPod).
I've routinely failed to be convinced by this argument. Basic/Standard cable may compete for viewers with broadcast TV, but it doesn't *really* compete with Video iPods, for example, because the viewership stats are so very different in number. Satellite radio really only competes with terrestrial radio, since it's the only one that has portable, streaming audio. When WiMax, et al. get popular, then perhaps you'll have a point, but until then, it's really just XM vs Sirius vs Clear Channel.
business and government are run by aliens? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lobbyist" is just a short way to say "a representative of a group of citizens who all have some common interest and pool their money to hire someone to let elected officials know how they feel (and will vote)." Business groups (like oil companies) have lobbyists, and so do unions (like the UAW, CWA, or AFL-CIO), and so do consumer groups, environmental groups, senior citizens' groups, animal breeder groups, Jewish groups, Muslim and evangelist groups, pro- and anti-immigration groups, pro- and anti-gun control groups, PETA and cattle ranchers, et cetera and so forth.
Or are you thinking "citizens" means only those folks who have no "business" interests at all? Folks without a job, who own nothing? Teenagers living in mom's basement?
In the real adult world, we all have economic interests. If we're employed in the radio industry -- making radios, selling radios, selling products on radio shows, hosting radio shows, reporting on the news, et cetera and so forth -- or if we make use of the radio industry -- we listen to radio shows and watch TV, or we use cell phones -- then we have opinions about how the FCC should regulate use of the airwaves. Almost certainly conflicting opinions.
Do you feel those opinions should not be presented forcefully to the government bureaucrats who make decisions affecting our interests? Should we just wait around, silent and respectful, while our betters on the FCC tell us what's good for us? Should every one of us who wants to be heard be forced to take time off from work to fly out to Washington to testify every time the FCC holds hearings (every four weeks, maybe)? Or does it sound kinda' reasonable and economical if a bunch of us with similar interests and opinions might hire some good talker to go to Washington and make our case for us on a regular basis? Which is what lobbying is.
Maybe what you're doing, in the hysterical spirit of the times, is confusing lobbying ("speaking up about what you want to your elected officials") with corruption (bribing elected officials). They're not the same. For one thing, the latter is a crime. For another, it's inherently anti-democratic, whereas there's very little more democratic than groups of citizens vying for influence through their freely chosen representatives (i.e. those evil lobbyists).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:business and government are run by aliens? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. While the poster presents an excellent view of how lobbying would work in a perfect world, in reality lobbyists are quite often highly paid contractors that express the desires of a relatively small number of people who have large amount of resources directed towards legislative action that directly benefits themselves, not the population as a whole.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well, in this case... (Score:3, Informative)
Lobbyist groups aren't a de facto evil. Just usually. And specifically in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, when in context of this thread, you have to replace "citizens" with "corporations". See, the problem is that this ISN'T about individuals forming groups which then lobby the government. It is about corporations -- which are answerable to a faceless group of shareholders (who have
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, are you self-employed, unemployed, or what? Don't you work for a "corporation"? If so, then like me, you know that a "corporation" is a collection of workers and managers plus a base of satisfied investors and customers. (Please note you can't be a successful corporation without the latter.)
In other words, a corporation represents quite a large group of citizens, and they're all tied together by some significan
Re:business and government are run by aliens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually corporations are interesting legal fictions that have some limited "personhood", except without the natural lifetime restrains of a human being.
Again, you have some idealistic ideas of how this whole thing works, but in actuality those spending the most amount of money on lobbying are not concerned citizens or corporations made of politically active workers, but rather very narrowly populated corporate leadership populations making a concerted effort to encourage legislation that furthers their interest, and hopefully to the detriment of their competitors' and/or opponents interests. This is, of course, done because it furthers the shareholders' interests, but nonetheless, the rosy picture you paint of corporate social structures is... shall we say... idealistic?
We worked fine without corporations for a long time between Neanderthals (which we likely never were, btw) and the modern day. Companies served that function just fine, though corporations do provide some useful legal shielding to their constituents/leadership.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
there. ...fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
C//
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After a pirate station was shut down by the FCC, free speech and public access to the airwaves issues were raised, along with the idea that additional lower power stations might be added without causing significant interference. But when rules were finally implemented, it was done in such a way that the vast majority of the allocations went to r
Re: (Score:2)
You want dangerous skies, higher ticket prices, and less government oversight of the airlines, make sure you don't do anything to contact your representati
Accountability! (Score:5, Insightful)
The GAO obviously feels like they are not transparent, as the report indicates. How bout some actual accountability from the Government Accountability Office now? What are they going to do about it?
Besides hurting their feelings
Re:Accountability! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Accountability! (Score:5, Insightful)
A congressman asks the GAO, "Hey is playing fair? Are they doing what they're supposed to do?"
GAO does some research, and responds, "Nope."
Then Congress has the opportunity to bust out massive whoopass, slash their funding, sell their children into slavery, etc, etc...They have the ability to do all kinds of enforcement, and even pass it up the line to the executive, who can call in the commandos, etc.
Though they probably won't do anything, because when does Congress ever do anything good? But they could, and that's how the system is supposed to work.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A congressman asks the GAO, "Hey is *insert name of organization* playing fair? Are they doing what they're supposed to do?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have the ability to do all kinds of enforcement, and even pass it up the line to the executive, who can call in the commandos, etc.
Up the line? Don't you mean down the line? The executive is supposed to be weaker than the legislative.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue "pass on to" the Executive, since (ideally) they're all supposed to be working towards the common good.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bug, it's a feature! ^^)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, the GAO is not an enforcement arm of your government, it's an investigative arm. Democratic Senator Edward Markey reqested the report and the GAO investigated the situation and reported back. The ball in now in Senator Markey's hands, it's his job to "do something about it".
Re: (Score:2)
The Actual GAO report (Score:4, Informative)
Report Summary http://gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-1046 [gao.gov]
Telecommunications: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information
GAO-07-1046 September 6, 2007
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 34 pages)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established that FCC should promote competition and reduce regulation to secure lower prices and higher-quality services for American consumers. FCC implements its policy aims through rulemaking, whereby the agency notifies the public of a proposed rule and provides an opportunity for the public to participate in the rule's development. These rulemakings are documented within a public docket that contains the rulemaking record. In response to a congressional request on FCC rulemaking, GAO (1) described FCC's rulemaking process; (2) determined, for specific rulemakings, the extent to which FCC followed its process; and (3) identified factors that contributed to some dockets and rulemakings remaining open. GAO reviewed recent FCC rules, interviewed FCC officials and stakeholders, and conducted case studies of rulemakings.
FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by law, with several opportunities for public participation. FCC generally begins the process by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and establishing a docket to gather information submitted by the public or developed within FCC to support the proposed rule. Outside parties may meet with FCC officials but must file a disclosure in the docket, called an ex parte filing, that includes any new data or arguments presented at the meeting. FCC analyzes information in the docket and drafts a final rule for the commission to adopt. The FCC chairman decides which rules the commission will consider and whether to adopt them by vote at a public meeting or by circulating them to each commissioner for approval. Stakeholders unsatisfied with a rule may file a petition for reconsideration with the commission or petition for review in federal court. FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case studies of completed rulemakings that GAO reviewed, but several stakeholders had access to nonpublic information. Specifically, each of the four rulemakings included steps as required by law and opportunities for public participation. Within the case studies, most ex parte filings complied with FCC rules. However, in the case studies and in discussions with other stakeholders that regularly participate in FCC rulemakings, multiple stakeholders generally knew when the commission scheduled votes on proposed rules well before FCC notified the public. FCC rules prohibit disclosing this information outside of FCC. Other stakeholders said that they cannot learn when rules are scheduled for a vote until FCC releases the public meeting agenda, at which time FCC rules prohibit stakeholders from lobbying FCC. As a result, stakeholders with advance information about which rules are scheduled for a vote would know when it is most effective to lobby FCC, while stakeholders without this information would not. The complexity and number of rulemakings within a docket and the priority the commission places on a rulemaking contribute to dockets and rulemakings remaining open. The commission determines when to open and close a docket and which rulemakings are a priority; therefore, the commission determines how a docket and rulemaking progress. Dockets and the rulemakings within them may remain open because the dockets are broad and include multiple rulemakings, or because the commission has not yet voted to close the dockets even though they include completed rules. Within dockets, some rule
Parent
A little too much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any amount of favoring lobbyists is a problem. I'm not saying lobbyists can't exist. But the (idealized) purpose of a lobbyist is to bring pertinent information and arguments to the attention of political officials. They should have no political influence beyond the persuasiveness of their arguments and the truthfulness of the data they present.
Perhaps I'm getting overly agitated by a simple little comment... but I am troubled by the fact that people increasingly accept that lobbyists will be able to influence the democratic process, and that their influence has to be balanced against other influences (e.g. voter opinion). This is not how it should be! Lobbyists should have no influence per se. As I said, the only thing that should matter is valid arguments about what is best for the populace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in theory, lobbyist are a healthy part of a representative democracy. Lobbyists do in fact represent a certain number of people, giving them a greater voice. That's pretty much how the House of Representatives works. Each district sends a lobbyist to lobby on behalf of that section of people. I'd say lobbyists are even a better idea, because they are supported by people who all have a common cause, not just a by-chance geographical proximity.
However, the problem with lobbyists today is that thei
Re:A little too much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am glad my cell phone doesn't need to overpower other signal sources and can use the lowest possible transmission power wich results in better battery lives.
Re:A little too much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there are two other functions the FCC performs: One is to effectively act as a national censorship bureau. I fail to see any real need for a federal agency with the power to create AND enforce "decency laws" for public broadcast media.
The other is to act as an overseeing body for companies that deal with the first two functions (EM spectrum and public media). This is another bullshit function IMHO, and in context of this article the most blatantly corrupt seen in the federal government in a long while.
Regulating the radio frequencies is good and useful. We do not need a federal nanny and corporate shill along with it.
=Smidge=
Parent
So what's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Chairman Kev (Score:4, Funny)
As the song says.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, why not? (Score:2)
Perfect examples - add yours here (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadband over Power Line and all the resultant RF interference... FCC manipulates measurement techniques, breaks it's own rules... Even international organizations say BPL causes excessive RF interference. FCC looks the other way. FCC brought to court.
Ham radio has its day in court (Score:2)
Rock on, GAO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if there's a slot in standup comedy for IT-related jokes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't see the problem... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I don't see the problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent