
Obama to Name Tom Wheeler, a Former Lobbyist, to Head FCC - yekko
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323982704578455000613034748.html
======
rayiner
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/business/technology-investor-is-
reported-choice-for-fcc.html?_r=0)

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...](http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=533926&privcapId=751092&previousCapId=174438&previousTitle=TARGET%20CORP)

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

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

~~~
CrazedGeek
(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.

~~~
ordinary
The article's header says "Obama to Name Wheeler to Head FCC", but the HTML
title attribute says "Obama to Name Wheeler, a Former Lobbyist, to Head FCC".

~~~
CrazedGeek
Oh hey, it does. Apologies. (Viewing title tags is inconvenient on a phone.)

------
greenyoda
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...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-
wheeler-20130501,0,213730.story)

------
ck2
This notion that each industry knows best how to regulate itself keeps ending
us up in one disaster after another.

~~~
jacoblyles
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.

~~~
livnev
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

~~~
jpadkins
Using your logic, shouldn't access to knowledge and information (the internet)
be a public service too? Shouldn't management have the imperative of
increasing living conditions for the populace rather than generating capital
apply to internet as well?

The logic behind the reasoning for healthcare, education, banking, telcom
being heavily regulated is extremely flawed. The real reason those sectors are
heavily regulated is so they can lock in profits with little effort.

~~~
livnev
The internet is more than access to knowledge and information, and I agree
that the sectors responsible for knowledge and information should have the
imperative of increasing living conditions, and not generating capital. This
is why Wikipedia should not be a business; this is why universities should not
be businesses and this why they should receive tax dollars. Note however, that
whether or not they should be regulated is a totally different matter. I was
questioning the notion that the problem with banking, medicine, and education
in the US is excessive regulation.

On the other hand, companies like Amazon and Facebook have little to do with
broadening access to knowledge and information (barring the latter in a
trivial sense of the word), and are oriented towards generating capital, so I
don't think the rhetorical questions that you open with are applicable here.

I'd like to hear you elaborate on why the reasoning for regulation is flawed
in the cases of healthcare, education, banking, telecom.

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

~~~
w1ntermute
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_Michon
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_political_parties)

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

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

~~~
harshreality
The two major parties are propped up by the mathematics of voting, and funds.
I believe mindshare is a symptom of those two things.

<http://www.rangevoting.org>

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Interesting site, but the process is more complex than I think it needs to be.
Try instant-runoff voting[1], Australia already switched to it:
[http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-
explained.h...](http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-
explained.html)

Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for
them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have
to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists.

Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at
all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be
standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day,
all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour
paid leave to go out and vote.

(None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would
help.)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting>

~~~
harshreality
Not for single-winner elections. STV (IRV) isn't so bad for multi-winner
elections, but for single-winner elections it fails monotonicity. (It's
difficult to design a multi-winner election system that's truly _bad_.) You
think Florida in 2000 was bad? If there's a significant election skewed by
IRV's problems, the population will want to burn the people who chose it _at
the stake_.

<http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html>

[http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-
runoff_voting#Assess...](http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-
runoff_voting#Assessing_IRV)

<http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html>

<https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/irv.htm>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29)

IRV is a hack to incorporate run-off voting into the first-round voting
system, and run-off voting is lacking.

In a political system as dysfunctional as the U.S., allowing voters to express
true voting preferences is more important than having a voting system that
will lead to only marginally better outcomes. Once true voting preferences are
known, the political parties will have to adjust to accommodate that. As long
as the voting system encourages some people to hide their true voting
preferences, those preferences cannot push the two dominant political parties
to change their platforms.

------
Qualman
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.

~~~
mseebach
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?

~~~
Qualman
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...](http://www.mobilemusings.net/2011/09/awaiting-final-aria.html)

~~~
mseebach
My point is that "regulation" isn't a monotonous scale from "more/better" to
"less/worse". The quote and link does not at all answer my questions; what
regulations did he work for as a lobbyist, and why?

Industry incumbents frequently use lobbyists to create regulation to raise the
bar to entry in their field, cementing their own position and stifling
competition - creating the kinds of complacent mono/doupolies that we know so
well from cable companies and ISPs.

------
kislayverma
Hope. Change. Flushed.

