Michael Powell to Leave FCC 409
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.'"
No Conference? (Score:5, Funny)
Strategically eliminating the chance for a wardrobe malfunction?
Praise Bob (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Praise Bob (Score:2, Insightful)
As a brief example: I has asked him about the broadcast flag issue,
Re:Praise Bob (Score:2)
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)
Re:Praise Bob (Score:5, Funny)
Knifin around (Score:2, Funny)
Will they censor him? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Will they censor him? (Score:2)
Stern.. (Score:3, Funny)
I can only imagine that he will be replaced with someone just as conservative/religious/etc.
Re:Stern.. (Score:3, Informative)
Howard actually won big assuming Sirius keeps the checks coming to him and they don't bounce.
Re:Stern.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Stern.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stern.. (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW: I do agree that warning labels are not censorship. What is wrong with saying what the content is? Liberals hate this because they can't stand for truth to be known about anything they do. No one is saying "Don't listen to this!" or "You can't listen to this." The warning labels are there to say, "This product contains this content." In light of all of the hooplah over the MPAA and folks saying "I don't want to buy the whole CD, I want one song so I download."
I for one... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Riveting? Hardly.
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
~S
his vision (Score:2)
Re:his vision (Score:2)
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!
Re:his vision (Score:2)
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
Re:his vision (Score:2)
Just 'cause it sounds similar doesn't mean it belongs.
Re:his vision (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Don't celebrate just yet.
Re:I have a sinking feeling.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:I have a sinking feeling.... (Score:2)
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
Re:I have a sinking feeling.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of the neo-con Republican party agenda, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, I'd love to see some of that gridlock.
Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Those are not 'Devil's Horns' (Score:2)
Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist (Score:2)
If you flashed that hand symbol people where I grew up, nobody would think "Longhorns", and you might get beat up by some young Christian men.
Of course, those same people yelled at using the Sign Language symbol for "I Love You".
FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not content. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:2)
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
Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:2)
You have that backwards.
Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:2)
As for commercials and kids, look at the definition of a Commercial vs. a Sponsor or Interstitial (i think thats how its spelled). Or in short compare PBS sponsoships/interstitals to commercials.
Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte (Score:2)
They also control diversity (Score:2)
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)
Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell (Score:2)
Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell (Score:2)
Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell (Score:3, Funny)
No, I don't find it unbelievable.
nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2)
And that would be VERY important if it was necessary. Why is our government mandating what happens in the market? They should not have wasted our tax dollars forcing this change to occur.
Buying tuners and TVs gives money to the wrong people and takes it away from the wrong people. Personally it pisses me off that technically oriented people fail to realize the nonsense that HDTV is.
You were fucked in the ass by t
Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:3, Informative)
You have a screw loose. Not "everyone" is getting them. Hell, I have only seen them in stores and on display at the State Fair.
They aren't impressive, they certainly aren't worth the tax money that was spent forcing their creation, and they certainly aren't worth the money we will have to plunk down when we want to watch TV.
But then again I'm not brainwashed by TV marketing...
Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:4, Interesting)
[OT ] Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:2)
Re:[OT ] Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:2)
Re:nice to see a failure to mention... (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the whole point of the HDTV transition is to clear a chunk of spectrum for auction (i.e. the transmission channel for the old format won't exist any more), the proper response is to shrug and call their bluff -- they either supply HD content or they go out of the media business.
Powells are out... (Score:2)
Well... (Score:3, Funny)
MOD PARENT FUNNY (Score:2)
Too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Howard Stern calls into Michael Powell interview (Score:2, Informative)
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)
Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio (Score:2)
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)
Re:fines (Score:2)
Re:fines (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Light hand? (Score:2)
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)
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)
to be replaced by John Ashcroft.
"Let the eagle soar...."
Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How many here think.. (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
That's hot (Score:2)
Powell on Cavuto on Fox News at 4:00 EST (Score:2)
What Howard Stern had to say (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile in New York (Score:2)
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
Abolish the FCC (Score:2)
Re:Abolish the FCC (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Good News/Bad News (Score:2)
Sorta like when Darth Ashcroft left. You never know who'll get appointed Chancellor next. . .
Naive Cover For Corporate Agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good... (Score:2)
Just as an example, the whole ludicrous fuss about Janet Jackson. Fining the TV company big bucks over that was the act of a total moron with absolutely no sense of priorities. I wonder how he behaves at home (assuming he is married).
Re:Good... (Score:2)
Did anyone read about Fox pixelating a cartoon butt that they aired 5 years ago, so as not to get FCC complaints?
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:2)
When someone says Fuck on the air.
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:2)
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the Commission is limited in who it can fine for what reasons. Since Stern is not a licensee, is not deliberately or inadvertantly interfering with other communications and isn't operating radio transmitting equipment without a license, the FCC can't fine him. They can only fine the "person" responsible for the broadcast - the station owner, who *is* a licensee, and as a condition of licensing, agreed to follow FCC rules.
Remember, Infinity chose to employ Stern and broadcast his program. Clear Channel chose to carry his show. Other groups/stations chose to carry his show.
Similarly, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake are not Commission licensees, were not operating any type of transmitting equipment and weren't interfering with anything. So neither could be fined by the FCC.
The licensee is the one with the burden of preventing indecent material from reaching the air, not the performers.
Now, I don't personally agree with fining them. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Jackson incident is a glaring example of why that doesn't work, when normally I'd agree.
If I don't want my kids listening to or watching Stern, it's easy enough to lock them out of the E! channel when his show comes on.
But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not suggesting that people are too prudish, and I'm not arguing that "anything goes" should be the policy, either.
I agree with the idea that if a show is advertised as for all ages, that's what it should be. But I also understand that things sometimes happen in live events that the broadcaster ca
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:2)
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most children spend their first months or years sucking on their mother's breast. Its no big deal anyway.
Why care about the Jackson boob flashing? (Score:3, Insightful)
There just wasn't anything to see. For less than a second part of her breast was exposed. Even if you look at it in slow motion (which, I'll admit, I have), you get just the merest glimpse of her nipple.
The real problem wasn't the boob flashing, it was the insistence of people in the media that it was something worth talking about. It wasn't, and it still isn't.
You say what they did was wrong - in your o
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:2)
I agree, but in what was ostensibly a family show (Superbowl), you're watching with the expectation of no boobs. There is no chance to switch the channel. If that game had been aired on the Playboy channel, I'd agree with your sentimen
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does Howard Stern Say? (Score:2)
Re:unfortunately .. (Score:5, Funny)
As long as that person also realizes that the copy bit is the devil's work!
Michael Powell (Score:2)
Yeah, but... (Score:2)