• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Genachowski Considered for Cabinet Post as Commerce Secretary

You know what they say about the devil you know?

Seriously, name a great FCC Chairman from the past 15 years. Someone who knows what he's doing, and can build consensus.
 
TheBigA said:
You know what they say about the devil you know?

Seriously, name a great FCC Chairman from the past 15 years. Someone who knows what he's doing, and can build consensus.
Click to expand...

OK, for your benefit I'll amend my statement: the man has been yet another disaster for the FCC.

And frankly I can't imagine why anyone at the NAB would want Genachowski to be the keynote speaker at their little shindig. We already know how the FCC chairman feels about the broadcast industry. The only thing he will do is attempt to sell auctions and TV band repacking schemes to a rightly skeptical audience. Better he should speak at the CEA convention where he'll feel the love. He certainly won't get any at the NAB show.
 
Understand the TV folks plan a warm welcome and a little something to feather his nest.

As soon as they get the city permit for the heaters for the tar & find enough chickens to pluck....
 
TomT said:
Understand the TV folks plan a warm welcome and a little something to feather his nest.

As soon as they get the city permit for the heaters for the tar & find enough chickens to pluck....
Click to expand...

Exactly. One person suggested that broadcasters should bring an extra pair of shoes and the Genachowski better hope that his ducking skills are as good as Bush's.
 
Funny how having a "polarizing" figure wasn't much of an issue during the previous administration. I think that says a whole lot.
 
I will certainly be happy to see him gone from the FCC, even though this does seem to be a case of promoting incompetence upwards.

Regarding the FCC under the prior administration, I do recall that Kevin Martin was widely considered to be a loose cannon who veered from what the administrationexpected from him. But, truthfully, by that late in the Bush administration, there were bigger worries, such as the deteriorating state of Iraq. I do not think that the FCC was even on the political radar at that point. That said, Genachowski has actually made me kind of miss Kevin Martin. Now, Michael Powell was another matter...
 
TexasTom said:
I will certainly be happy to see him gone from the FCC, even though this does seem to be a case of promoting incompetence upwards.

Regarding the FCC under the prior administration, I do recall that Kevin Martin was widely considered to be a loose cannon who veered from what the administrationexpected from him. But, truthfully, by that late in the Bush administration, there were bigger worries, such as the deteriorating state of Iraq. I do not think that the FCC was even on the political radar at that point. That said, Genachowski has actually made me kind of miss Kevin Martin. Now, Michael Powell was another matter...
Click to expand...

The difference between little Kevin and Genachowski, Tom, is that while Kevin was mostly clueless and way out of his depth, Julius is that plus arrogant. It would be great if, for once, we had an FCC chairman who really understood the industries the Commission regulates and supported them instead of dissing those industries while simultaneously reaching out to regulate another industry through new regulations, such as the net neutrality rules.

Apparently, Genachowski swears that he is staying put at the FCC.

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i428f1a95cad91263ac938fb2b41b5ee4

But then Kevin Martin, at the close of the Bush Administration, said basically the same thing ("I'm not going anywhere," were his words if I recall) and he was gone within a month.
 
Carmine5 said:
It would be great if, for once, we had an FCC chairman who really understood the industries the Commission regulates and supported them instead of dissing those industries while simultaneously reaching out to regulate another industry through new regulations, such as the net neutrality rules.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Commission covers so many industries. It's way bigger than broadcasting. No one person can know all the industries they regulate. I'd be happy with people who just understand the regulatory process.
 
Therein lies the problem. They all understand how the regulatory process works, hardly any of them understand why they SHOULDN'T regulate.
 
TomT said:
Therein lies the problem. They all understand how the regulatory process works, hardly any of them understand why they SHOULDN'T regulate.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue...a certain amount of regulation (developing band plans, allocation criteria, maximum power levels, channel widths, and other technical criteria that allow everything to work as it should) is absolutely necessary. For those of us who don't like Genachowski -- at least those of us on this board -- most of us are upset with his attempts to push broadcast TV off of a good chunk of it's remaining spectrum, and this isn't an issue of regulating versus not regulating, but rather a matter of wrong-headed regulation.
 
TexasTom said:
TomT said:
Therein lies the problem. They all understand how the regulatory process works, hardly any of them understand why they SHOULDN'T regulate.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue...a certain amount of regulation (developing band plans, allocation criteria, maximum power levels, channel widths, and other technical criteria that allow everything to work as it should) is absolutely necessary. For those of us who don't like Genachowski -- at least those of us on this board -- most of us are upset with his attempts to push broadcast TV off of a good chunk of it's remaining spectrum, and this isn't an issue of regulating versus not regulating, but rather a matter of wrong-headed regulation.
Click to expand...

I think what Tom is saying is that it's a matter of knowing what to regulate and what not--or knowing what regulations will help an industry as opposed to stifling it.

I'm well aware that the FCC regulates more then just broadcasting. The problem, and it has been a trend for a long time, is that the FCC chairmanship has usually been given as a reward by the incoming administration to anyone (although preferably a lawyer) who has worked hard campaigning for the winning candidate whether that person understands any of the industries under FCC control or not. Little Kevin got his job as chairman that way and so did Genachowski.
 
Carmine5 said:
Little Kevin got his job as chairman that way and so did Genachowski.
Click to expand...

The fact is that any Presidential appointment works this way, and there's no way around it. President Kennedy made his brother Attorney General even though he had limited experience in that area.

As you no doubt know, the real work at the FCC is done by the civil servants. They're the ones who have knowledge and experience in this area.
 
But there are more and more lawyers on staff and fewer and fewer engineers. The trouble with lawyers is that they always assume they know more than they really do about fields in which they have no competence.

(Disclosure: I know, I'm a lawyer, but also hold a lifetime general class license)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom