Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Communications Media

Michael Powell to Leave FCC 409

Posted by michael from the tenure-malfunction dept.
Anonymous Slashdotter writes "Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, will be stepping down from his post soon. 'Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters, planned to issue a statement Friday but was not expected to hold a formal news conference, these officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Powell to Leave FCC More

Michael Powell to Leave FCC

Comments Filter:

  • No Conference? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:31PM (#11434040) Homepage Journal
    but was not expected to hold a formal news conference,

    Strategically eliminating the chance for a wardrobe malfunction?

  • Praise Bob (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zeke-o ( 595753 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:31PM (#11434041)
    of course, his replacement might be even worse ..

    • Re:Praise Bob (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DaHat ( 247651 )
      I for one am hoping that Bush does not give the nod to Jonathan Adelstein, while he is from SD and that certainly gives him points in my eyes... a number of years ago I had the opportunity to hear him speak and answer a number of questions. Never in my life have I met a man such as he who is so devoted to the corporate agenda at the expense of the consumer and not willing to admit it and seemingly happy to have the consumer be screwed over.

      As a brief example: I has asked him about the broadcast flag issue,
      • As a brief example: I has asked him about the broadcast flag issue, and he dodged the question with a "on one hand this, on the other hand that"... and never concluding anything.

        If you are trying to paint him as an irrational corporate lap dog you did a bad job. Showing that somebody understands trade-offs in situations makes them appear very credible.

    • Re:Praise Bob (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ryan Stortz ( 598060 )
      I'd say the replacement will be just as bad (or good, if you're into VoIP). Powell was appointed by Bush on Bush's 3rd day as president, although Powell did expand the chairman's power to levy fines. Much like Truman expanding the President's ability to wage war; it's going to set a (dangerous?) precident.

    • Re:Praise Bob (Score:5, Funny)

      by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:55PM (#11434352)
      I hope they replace him with Howard Stern.
  • I would have gotten FP, but consolidation has forced me out of the market!

  • Will they censor him? (Score:4, Funny)

    by The_Rippa ( 181699 ) * on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:32PM (#11434058)
    Just curious, since assholes aren't allowed to be shown on network tv, when they air the press conference will he be pixelated or completely covered with a black dot?

  • Stern.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:33PM (#11434063)
    So did Howard Stern win or lose?

    I can only imagine that he will be replaced with someone just as conservative/religious/etc.

    • Re:Stern.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
      So did Howard Stern win or lose?

      Howard actually won big assuming Sirius keeps the checks coming to him and they don't bounce.

      ...a five-year, $500 million deal... [cnn.com]

    • Re:Stern.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bendawg ( 72695 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:48PM (#11434263)
      Stern went on a 10 minute rant about it this morning.
      Basically he said that Powell didn't deserve to be there, and was only there because of his dad (which he's said many times before). He also said that it probably wouldn't make any difference, because the Bush administration is still in power, and they will probably find someone who is just as bad or worse than Powell was about trying to enforce "indecency standards". That was followed up by calling Powell basically a two-faced liar who said that indecency should be controlled by the market, then "cowtowing" to pressure from the large conglomerate radio organizations, and allowing a few organizations to become very powerful in radio.

    • Re:Stern.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh, it's not conservative/religious/etc. Remember Tipper Gore? She was laregly responsible for the explicit lyrics warning lables on music. Tipper Gore is not conservative at all from a political standpoint, she is known as a liberal. Conservative, liberal, they're all a bunch of Bill of Rights hating fools. I am becoming convinced that the sole purpose of the US government is to stifle to people, crush innovation, buy our food, and think for us. Any idiot across the whole right to left wing spectrum

  • I for one... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Deep Fried Geekboy ( 807607 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:33PM (#11434066)
    ... shan't miss him.

    Check out his on-air confrontation with Howard Stern [boingboing.net] from a couple of months ago... riveting stuff.

    • Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:56PM (#11434362)
      Funny, I heard it when it first happened. Powell sounded articulate and reasoned; Stern sounded like a buffoon. While what Powell was saying may still have been disagreeable, he didn't attack Stern personally, whereas that is all Stern did.

      Riveting? Hardly.

      • Re:I for one... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Soporific ( 595477 )
        I don't know what you are talking about, he was asking legitimate questions. Asking Powell about his job experience is totally related as was actually getting to grill a public servant about his perceived cronyism. Like the thing about Oprah, he said there wasn't a double standard, but if that isn't then I don't know what is. Stern never called him a moron or anything like that, if asking him some tough questions is rude well then I guess he's rude but give me a break.

        ~S
  • Michael Powels vision judging by his actions would be a few large fat companies showing the same bland stuff on every channel.
    • What do you mean by his vision would be? You mean it's not already here?

      I can't tell you the last time I heard a song from Molly Hatchet or Quiet Riot let alone a song from Judas Priest other than 'Breakin the law' or 'You got another thing coming'. If I hear Stairway to Heaven one more time. . .

      This on our supposed 'classic rock' station. The same station who just yesterday played a song from NickelBack.

      NickelBack is classic rock? I have pants older than they are!

      • NickelBack is classic rock? I have pants older than they are!

        Swing pretty much died out at the end of the 40's as a popular form of music. Does that make the Cherry Poppin' Daddies any less of a swing band? Bach died in 1750, yet people are still composing new classical music.

        It's not the age of the band, but the style of the music which determines the genre. I've never herad NickelBack, but if they play music which sounds like Classic Rock, then they belong on a classic rock station, regardless of

        • By that measure I should be pleased that all I hear at folk festivals are Beatles and Cat Stevens covers.

          Just 'cause it sounds similar doesn't mean it belongs.

    • Re:his vision (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FlimFlamboyant ( 804293 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:16PM (#11434605) Homepage

      On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations.

      If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed. After all, isn't that how large, successful corporations got to where they are today? They are in the business of selling a product that the public wants. If that happens to be smut, then they will push the envelope as far as they can until the free market or the FCC says enough is enough.

      • Re: his vision (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcc ( 14761 )
        On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations. If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed.

        Well, this is only the case if you view the Christian Coalitian as something other than a large corporation, right?

  • I have a sinking feeling.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:33PM (#11434070)
    That his replacement will be even worse.

    Don't celebrate just yet.
    • About time someone else figured this out. The whole Devil you know, vs. the one you don't know concept seems to be lost on quite a few...
      OK, so he banned a few "bad" words and a little nudity.
      What's the next guy going to do to fair use rights? Is he going to hop in bed with the networks?
      I may like Bush (ok, yeah, hit my karma) but I am scared to death of who he will put in charge...
      • I may like Bush (ok, yeah, hit my karma) but I am scared to death of who he will put in charge...

        Your wording is vague on whether you do or not but how could you possibly like a President that repeatedly puts your Constitutional rights at risk and may appoint people to high-ranking posts that might further endanger those rights?

        When you vote for the office of President you aren't voting for just that single seat. You are voting for all the possible seats that President might appoint (ie the Supreme Cour
  • Powell, who is a decent and devout Christian, probably objected heavily when both Jeanna [msn.com] and President Bush [yimg.com] announced their allegiance to Satan during yesterday's ceremony.

  • FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not content. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:36PM (#11434111) Journal

    At least, that was the original design. Someone needs to take them to court over the 1st ammendment. If someone's sign language is governed by free speech, then it follows that the broadcasts should also be governed by the same. They both travel over electro magnetic waves, right?

    • Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:5, Informative)

      by ellem ( 147712 ) * <ellem52.gmail@com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:46PM (#11434241) Homepage Journal
      Close -- but Nixon gave them the power over content.

    • Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:5, Informative)

      by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:52PM (#11434316) Homepage Journal
      They have been taken to court over the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the public interest to have the FCC place reasonable restrictions on content aired within certain times over public airwaves. Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive. Transmissions over more limited media (cable and satellite) do not fall within the domain of the FCC, as has been determined by the courts on occasion, and which I believe even Michael Powell has stated in declining to get involved in certain satellite and cable broadcast issues (don't recall them specifically offhand).
    • There's one issue, TV and radio stations are licensed the frequency and must follow the rules defined for the license. If you want broadcast stuff that people may deem offense, there's always cable, sat radio, or sat tv. If FCC tries to regulate the content on those, is when you should be concerned.

      Personally I'd like to see more regulations of public airwaves. These are for public interests, not commercial interests. Government should setup better standards for advertising on content designed for c

    • The way the FCC penalty system is structured, a station cannot renew or transfer licenses while the matter is open. For a large media company who relies on being able to buy and sell stations, this is a strong incentive to pay the fine and not fight it.
    • They are the ones who decide how many TV/radio stations can be owned by a single company.

      Powell's replacement could, for all we know, be a friend of Rupert Murdoch. How hard would that scenario be to imagine?

      I hear Bill O'Reilly is looking for work.. :-)

  • Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nganju ( 821034 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:37PM (#11434118)
    I wonder if Colin Powell's exodus is not unrelated to this.
  • his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article [com.com]. I think that is more news for nerds.
    • Oh right...

      The only interest in moving to the ATSC standard for DTV was to free up spectrum to sell off.

      If they were truely interested in promoting HDTV.... standard definition would not have been an option. The industry was regulated into this movement for no other reason then profit.

      The simple fact is the government has something to gain at no cost to themselves. It's virtually a win win situation.

      Also couple this with near last minute adjustments and a draconian adoption stance and it leaves some of

    • Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:52PM (#11434315)
      HDTV is one of the biggest screws ever put to the american public! Forcing the replacement of hundreds of MILLIONS of working TV's and equipment so the FCC can auction off the spectrum? It's a payday for everyone involved except the US public.

      Companies get to: Sell tons of new TVs, DVD players/Recorders and Tuners (yours isn't compatible anymore!), implement DRM (I can't wait until someone goes to jail for recording Enterprise), and the FCC gets to auction off a prime piece of the specturm for an ungodly sum.

      • Yeah! It's the same as when the phone company went to touch tone and my pulse phones didn't work anymore! Oh, wait...

        Look, your TV isn't going to be useless anytime soon. Heck, that day is so far out that it'll probably break before then anyhow.

        Relax. No one has suggested that everyone discards their TV on any give date. The regulatory date given to TV stations to upgrade their signal doesn't mean they'll terminate analog broadcasts that day too.

        I have an old TV that only has RF in, but this trivial

    • Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:55PM (#11434351)
      Reader beware: in the above post "deregulation of the Internet" means Powell allowed the cable companies to censor their Internet service, in opposition to decades of common-carrier policy. In GOP speak, "deregulation" means rich white guys get all the money, and the customer gets a nice dick in the ass.
  • His father, Colin, is also stepping down. I wonder what this means in terms of GOP internal power struggle?

  • Well... (Score:3, Funny)

    by wcitechnologies ( 836709 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:39PM (#11434148)
    Well, from what I hear that guy can be a real (censored).

  • Too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by numLocked ( 801188 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:41PM (#11434173) Homepage Journal
    I think you all are too harsh on my man Mikey P.

    He heads an organization that is ostensibly about regulating new technologies, but employs almost 10 times as many lawyers as engineers, and the average age of the engineers is quite high (in the 40s, if memory serves). He has done a surprisingly good job of staying moderate in terms of amount of regulation. He generally knows when to stay out of the fray, and has been quick to officially adopt standards that have been cemented internationally.

    He really has an impossible job, and I think he has been doing as well as anyone could have expected.
  • Hello,

    Howard Stern [howardstern.com] actually called into an interview Michael Powell [fcc.gov] was doing with KGO radio in San Francisco last October. Interesting enough, one of Howard Stern's main complaints was the FCC was preventing Viacom [viacom.com] from buying stations.

    More information (MP3, transcript) can be found at Boing Boing [boingboing.net].

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

  • It may not be too late for Ham Radio (Score:4, Informative)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:43PM (#11434205) Journal
    I don't know whether it's too late to un-do all the damage he has done to Amateur Radio by coating BPL with teflon and ramming it through - but hopefully common sense will prevail and BPL will be shelved...
    • Unlikely. If BPL works as expected over large-scale trials, much of the grid is going to be turned into internet connections, which plenty of people out in the boondocks are going to really appreciate, and which will introduce more competition for the cablemodem and DSL companies.

      At the risk of the wrath of ham radio community, this is something that may well prove to be of more use than amateur radio. I'm aware of the various social and emergency uses, but BPL would affect millions, possibly tens of mil

  • fines (Score:2)

    by Jodka ( 520060 )
    'Powell .. collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters
    Now is that because FCC indecency policy became more strict under Powell, or because policy remained unchanged but the culture is becoming publicly more sexual and profane?
    • A little from column A and a little from column B... ~5-6 years ago when Britney's first video came out, I was pretty amazed at how sexually graphic it was... today, when I see that video, it strikes me as something that could be a commercial for the Bible... so yeah, culture is definitely becoming more overtly sexual and profane, and as the reaction to that change, indecency enforcement is becoming more strict...

    • Re:fines (Score:3, Insightful)

      by $criptah ( 467422 )

      Sexual and profane? I find it ironic that in most developed countries of the world sex and some profanity is not a big deal. In Europe people have been enjoying topless beaches and sexy commercials for a long time. What is wrong with that?

      In the United States you can't see a boob on TV. Apparently, it will traumatize our children. However, if kids want to watch something really stupid like "Simple Life," or MTV, people are okay with it. Wake up, America! It is funny how Americans react to nudity and sexu

  • Revolving Door (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:46PM (#11434228) Homepage Journal
    As soon as the limelight moves on, he'll take a job with ClearChannel.
  • Can someone explain to me how one would have a regulatory 'light hand' while still collecting 'some of the largest indecency fines against broadcasters?'

    Maybe it's just me, but these two statements seem to be more than a little incompatible with one another.

  • How is this a logically consistent statement? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wizarddc ( 105860 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:46PM (#11434238) Homepage Journal
    Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters

    He didn't do much regulating, but he also did a lot of regulating. If that's not doublethink, i don't know what is.

  • Michael Powell steps down... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:48PM (#11434264)
    Michael Powell steps down...

    to be replaced by John Ashcroft.

    "Let the eagle soar...."

  • Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:49PM (#11434276) Journal
    Last year, Powell repeatedly shielded VoIP services from intrusive government regulation and taxation. The FCC voted in February that Internet-only VoIP services were not subject to FCC oversight and expanded that view in November to protect VoIP from state regulators. ...

    "He let us go out and build this new thing without knowing all the issues beforehand," said Jeff Citron, chief executive of Vonage, the largest U.S. provider of Internet telephone services. "He helped the telephone industry transition from the old to the new world."

    Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.

    But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like.
    • I agree, he has done alot of great things. Personally, I'd prefer he stayed rather than possibily having someone much worse. Apart from the broadcast flag (which isn't all that unreasonable) and the finings, I think he has an almost spotless record. Anyone (Well, polititions) in his position would of dealt out a good deal of fines with the pressure the FCC recieved. Even if 99.8% of all complaints came from a single advocacy group.

      Of course, the ham radio nerds will always hate him. Seriously, sometimes th

    • Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:45PM (#11434895)
      Not to spoil your fun being an oppressed Republican and all. But I would prefer, in the spirit of your "giving credit where credit is due" post, why give Powell and the FCC for what the FTC is doing? Check it out. [donotcall.gov]

    • Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bushidocoder ( 550265 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:47PM (#11434917) Homepage
      Not to mention that he sides with Tivo and the consumers every time the content industry came calling, with the exception of the copy bit, which although he allowed to be implemented, did not fully standardize. When the NFL complained that TivoToGo violated their decades long control over their market with blackout dates, he ruled in favor of the consumer. He never interfered with cables versus satellite's ability to compete with each other fairly. He sat back and let the markets push broadband into almost every willing home with very limitted regulation. He expanded the available bandwidth for wireless carriers at a low cost, ensuring that even with the recent corporate mergers, there's still 5 major carriers for consumers to choose from.

      We may not like everything he did, but I agree - lets give the man some credit for leading the only part of government to not completely screw emerging technologies.

  • along with me that he could very well be planning to run for Public Office?

    In a value-charged society as it is right now, he could swing enough evangelical votes to get on the ballot..

    What I want to see from the ideal FCC Chairman is the balls to slash ownership percentage of the Big Media and allow more independent voices be heard.

  • Fining for indecency is "lighthanded regulation"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:53PM (#11434323)
    I call bullshit.

    The same way that sodomy laws, the war on drugs, and all the other conservative morality laws are "less government."

    The chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams.

  • Fark had it right (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chairboy ( 88841 )
    As fark.com put it, he's obviously stepping down because his work is done, as evidenced by Fox pixelating an animated butt on Family Guy (http://www.canada.com/entertainment/story.html?i d =125fef6e-bfc5-4ffc-92fd-736badb8b689 [canada.com]) out of fear of getting fined.

    If you run the FCC and you get a cartoon to censor itself spontaneously, on FOX of all places, that's how you know you've dealt some serious spankage.

  • Howard Stern rules [howardstern.com]!
  • "Howard came back from break and got Mike Walker on the line so they could play the Gossip Game with him. Howard told Mike that something just came over the wire saying that Michael Powell is probably going to resign today. Howard said that's not a surprise because now that he's leaving radio, he's got nothing else to do. Gary told Howard that they're getting a ton of requests from the press for Howard to give some quotes. Howard said that this is a great thing because the guy didn't deserve the job in the
  • Now, can we all imagine Howard Stern jumping through flaming hoops with joy?

    But seriously, I don't think that this is exactly whay I would call good news. Powell was certainly an unqualified political appointee who did a fairly lousy job at effectively regulating the free speech issues of the FCC.

    But stop and think- who the hell is going to get appointed to the position? In a society that seems to be waging cultural warfare on itself, the next chairman may be effective and completely opposed to intel

    • Re:Abolish the FCC (Score:3, Informative)

      by dentar ( 6540 )
      This "Abolish the FCC" thing is absurd. Without the FCC to allocate spectrum, TVs, Radios, and communication devices would not have come about because there would be no standard frequencies on which to operate.

      A better solution is NOT abolishing the FCC, but to limit their powers to be allocating spectrum and making sure accepted equipment does not interfere with one another.

      We NEED the FCC. The only abolishment that should happen is the FCC's right to determine what should and what should not be said o

  • Which is worse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adewolf ( 524919 ) <adewolf@gmail.com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:17PM (#11434619) Journal
    Ok so which is worse nakid breast or some guy's head being chopped in. Personally I would rather my daughter see the breast than the chopped in head. The FCC seems perfectly happy with kids watching extreme violence but get's all disgruntled over band language (so what) or a nakid body part. Makes me wonder. Alex
  • I'm glad to see him go, but I just hope the next person will be better.

    Sorta like when Darth Ashcroft left. You never know who'll get appointed Chancellor next. . .

  • Naive Cover For Corporate Agenda (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cmholm ( 69081 ) <[cmholm] [at] [mauiholm.org]> on Friday January 21, 2005 @06:09PM (#11436545) Homepage Journal
    Mike Powell is just another well connected cog. Anyone, anyone who agrees with the claim that a corporation should be able to own the majority of a broadcast and/or print medium in the US due to competition with new technologies is either naive or a corporate stooge.

    Rupert frickin' Murdock owns a major piece of satellite direct broadcast, which as a whole is almost a monopoly. Most of the internet content that most people see and hear is owned or controlled by the same faces that own/control existing modes of info transmission.TCP transmission has become very concentrated, as has cellular infrastructure.

    So, where's all this competition Mr. Powell talked about? It's nonexistant. It's looking like the stewards of US industry didn't mind the previous Soviet command economy per se, just that it wasn't them in command.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos

Close