# FCC Chief Powell Resigns



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC has resigned.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

Joke, wishfull dream, rumour, true?

Please let it be true!


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

True.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050121/us_nm/telecoms_powell_resign_dc_9

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050121/ap_en_bu/fcc_powell_3

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145057,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=430990&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/sto...-4FC4-86C5-342FB0023769}&dist=rss&siteid=mktw


----------



## BabaLouie (Apr 2, 2004)

Nick said:


> Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC has resigned.


Ya think Howard Stern will be in line to replace him?


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

Let's hope Bush appoints someone who is actually in touch with reality.

Clinton appointed Powell. Let's see what Bush does.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Wow, this could be the best news all year...


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Is there any chance, any at all, that someone who actually understands broadcast technology and isn't an extremist could get appointed?


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

While Powel was out there and I think went a little overboard on his "censoring", he did do some good things. He tried to manage radio frequencies better, tried hard to push for more HD/DTV, and fought tooth and nail not to subject VoIP to the same regulatory nightmares and restrictions that the phone companies deal with.

With having him in office, we basically knew what he meant. The think that scares me is who is going to replace him and how it is going to screw with us. I would expect the next chariman would even less of an idea of technology and more in the pockets of big business.

Better grab a big ol' can of lube because we're ultimately going to get screwed and it ain't going to be pleasurable.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

No matter who replace him, they can't be any worse then Powell. This is great news!

Deraz, Bush appointed Powell as chairman in 2001 as per Johns first link.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

Clinton gave him a seat in '97 - Bush made him chairman two days into the job. Don't matter - who knows what either of them were thinking!

Powell is one of my friend's neighbors. Says they never see him. Wife and kids every once in a while, but Mikey is like a hermit.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

So what did Powell do that has ticked people off? From what I hear, the people that don't like him feel the way they do because he tried to enforce indecency rules. That is, enforce the rules on the books. If that's what people don't like, they shouldn't blame a man for adhering to the rules. If they don't like the rules, they should try to get them changed. Powell was in a tough position it appears: enforce the rules and listen to people complain, or don't enforce the rules and people call you negligent.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The problem is not defining the rules. TV stations asked for guidelines on what the indecency standards were - so they'd know how to follow the rules - the language is very vague. Powell simply replied that they respond to complaints.

In other words, we won't tell you the rules of the game until someone cries "foul".


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

djlong said:


> The problem is not defining the rules. TV stations asked for guidelines on what the indecency standards were - so they'd know how to follow the rules - the language is very vague. Powell simply replied that they respond to complaints.
> 
> In other words, we won't tell you the rules of the game until someone cries "foul".


Exactly. I saw a piece on his resignation on the news last evening, there was a short clip of him explaining his stance on the fines he levied for "indecency" where he said he was simply acting on the behalf of the thousands of people who cried for something to be done. However, it was recently released by the FCC itself that in 2003, 99.9% of ALL complaints about indecency on television or radio came from ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE, the Parents Television Council, a right-wing christian advocacy group. So it seems to me that Powell was acting on the behalf of one extremist group, not the majority of Americans who DIDN'T complain.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

durl said:


> So what did Powell do that has ticked people off? From what I hear, the people that don't like him feel the way they do because he tried to enforce indecency rules. That is, enforce the rules on the books. If that's what people don't like, they shouldn't blame a man for adhering to the rules. If they don't like the rules, they should try to get them changed. Powell was in a tough position it appears: enforce the rules and listen to people complain, or don't enforce the rules and people call you negligent.


Would you like the police to give a ticket for eveyone driving 56 in a 55 zone? 
But then again this is the FCC so there would be no speed limit signs. They would just give tickets to whoever they wanted. Oprah would be able to drive 200mph. :lol:


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Is there any chance, any at all, that someone who actually understands broadcast technology and isn't an extremist could get appointed?


The rumour here in DC is Kevin Martin.... scans of his bio and speech texts are pretty scary.


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Is there any chance, any at all, that someone who actually understands broadcast technology and isn't an extremist could get appointed?


And I assume you believe in the Easter Bunny too?  (I too am very concern who might replacement him.)


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

deraz said:


> The rumour here in DC is Kevin Martin.... scans of his bio and speech texts are pretty scary.


Don't know the man. What is his background?


----------



## Geeke19 (Oct 16, 2004)

whoooo thank god that POS is fired! I wrote to the FCC many times saying Rural Areas need broadband! Change the telocom laws!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"Powell is one of my friend's neighbors. Says they never see him. Wife and kids every once in a while, but Mikey is like a hermit."

Hey, deraz:
I've tried to get answers from the FCC and the White House...........
Could your friend find out, for me, if Mikey has a Digital TV and a set-top for receiving local DTV stations?
I've always wondered if these guys in DC really are supporting the same things we are expected to embrace.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

"Michael Powell resigning is a great thing, because this guy did not deserve the job in the first place. He was appointed because of his father. Michael Powell was no more qualified, perhaps less qualified than the other guys sitting on the FCC, and had no right to be there." - Howard Stern

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145101,00.html


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

kenglish said:


> "Powell is one of my friend's neighbors. Says they never see him. Wife and kids every once in a while, but Mikey is like a hermit."
> 
> Hey, deraz:
> I've tried to get answers from the FCC and the White House...........
> ...


Went by his house in Fairfax Station. I could not see a sat. dish or an antenna. Most likely he is using Cox cable.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

bavaria72 said:


> Don't know the man. What is his background?


Already a commissioner.

How's this to scare you from fcc.gov (2/11/04):

Summary of Written Statement 
Kevin J. Martin

Television today contains some of the coarsest and most violent programming ever aired-and more of it. Indeed, the networks appear to be designing programs to "push the envelope" and the bounds of decency. At the FCC, we used to receive indecency complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. Consumers, particularly parents, are increasingly frustrated and, at times, outraged.
Something needs to be done. We need to provide parents with better tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters. The FCC needs to be more responsive. We need to provide parents with more tools to watch television as a family and to protect their children from violent and indecent programming. I propose four steps:
1. Aggressively enforce the law. For over a year, I have been calling on the Commission to aggressively enforce our statutory mandate against obscene, indecent and profane language. Our fines have been inadequate. We need to make the decision to air indecent or profane language a bad business decision. The Commission should levy higher fines by fining violators "per utterance," not per program. I also strongly support the pending legislation to increase fines. We also should enforce the statutory prohibition against profanity, and respond to the hundreds of thousands of pending complaints. It doesn't matter how tough our fining authority is if we don't actually enforce the rules. 
2. Affirm local broadcasters' ability to reject inappropriate programming. We need to grant the network affiliates' request to clarify that our rules protect a local broadcaster's ability to refuse to air programming that is "unsuitable" for its local community. This ability is critical to those local broadcasters that want to keep coarser network programming off the air in their communities. Network affiliates provide a natural check on the control of network programming in the marketplace, rather than through direct government oversight of network content. 
3. Urge broadcasters to reinstate the family hour. For over a year, I have been urging broadcasters to devote the first hour of prime time to family-friendly programs that parents and children could enjoy together. The Commission also should put out for comment Paxson Communications's proposed voluntary Public Interest Code of Conduct, which includes the concept of a Family Hour.
4. Address cable and satellite programming. With more than 85% of homes receiving their television programming from cable and satellite providers, we need a comprehensive solution. Over a year ago, I urged cable and satellite operators to help us address this issue. Thus far, there has been no response. Something needs to be done. Cable and satellite operators could offer an exclusively family-friendly programming package. Alternatively, cable and DBS operators could offer programming in a more a la carte manner; they could permit parents to request not to receive certain programming and reduce the package price accordingly. I am sympathetic to the many people calling for the same rules to apply to everyone-for a level playing field. If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse to offer parents more tools such as family-friendly programming packages, basic indecency and profanity restrictions may be a viable alternative that also should be considered.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

"Summary of Written Statement 
Kevin J. Martin"

Bad scary. 

Kevin, say it now with me, "V-Chip". DUH!

They forced that on the industry, so USE IT!

That being said, if a programming provider is not coding their content correctly, THEN stiff fines are VERY appropriate.

Code Stern as "AO" or whatever and let him talk. I've listened to him, and don't particularly like it, but I see NOTHING wrong with him being out there - as long as there's "fair notice" of what's coming - which is EXACTLY what V-Chip is all about.

That being said, I don't think radio has V-Chip, so in the case of Stern (radio), that's a problem - but you all see my point when it comes to TV, I'm sure.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

deraz said:


> At the FCC, we used to receive indecency complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. Consumers, particularly parents, are increasingly frustrated and, at times, outraged.


What he fails to mention is that, by the FCC's own reports obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, 99.9% of the "hundreds of thousands" of complaints received in 2003 were from ONE organization, the Parent's Television Counsil. They are right-wing religious zealots who think Bugs Bunny is promoting homosexuality and that even premium cable like HBO should be censored.

So why does ONE organization get to threaten every network and television station with fines and sanctions from the FCC?


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Code Stern as "AO" or whatever and let him talk. I've listened to him, and don't particularly like it, but I see NOTHING wrong with him being out there - as long as there's "fair notice" of what's coming - which is EXACTLY what V-Chip is all about.


Not an issue for much longer, 342 days, 8 hours, 17 minutes and 21 seconds (as of this post) until his chains are unlocked and he's at a place that recognizes something called the First Amendment that Master Powell and the FCC like to ignore.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

HappyGoLucky said:


> What he fails to mention is that, by the FCC's own reports obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, 99.9% of the "hundreds of thousands" of complaints received in 2003 were from ONE organization, the Parent's Television Counsil. They are right-wing religious zealots who think Bugs Bunny is promoting homosexuality and that even premium cable like HBO should be censored.
> 
> So why does ONE organization get to threaten every network and television station with fines and sanctions from the FCC?


The problem with that argument is that "hundreds of thousands" of complaints are ignored simply because they belong to a particular organization. Many segments of the population get attention to their beliefs/lifestyle simply because they're well organized. There are plenty of groups that complain about various things they see on TV. If, therefore, we ignore complaints based upon group affiliation, we ignore the NAACP when they complain about the portrayal of blacks in media, we ignore FLAG and other homosexual groups when they complain about portrayal of gays. After all, to give credence to their complaints would mean allowing a single group to determine what gets censored.

If tolerance were the ideal, then no one would complain about anything. That would also mean that no one would complain about right-wing groups as well. Tolerance goes both ways or it's meaningless. To insist that one group can't voice their opinion means that no one can. Being intolerant towards someone who you deem as intolerant makes you intolerant as well. (wow...that's deep, huh?) And intolerant people apparently are the scum of the earth these days. In media, neither the left nor the right can win based upon the "tolerance" theory. It comes down to economics: which audience do they want to please the most?


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

durl said:


> The problem with that argument is that "hundreds of thousands" of complaints are ignored simply because they belong to a particular organization. Many segments of the population get attention to their beliefs/lifestyle simply because they're well organized. There are plenty of groups that complain about various things they see on TV. If, therefore, we ignore complaints based upon group affiliation, we ignore the NAACP when they complain about the portrayal of blacks in media, we ignore FLAG and other homosexual groups when they complain about portrayal of gays. After all, to give credence to their complaints would mean allowing a single group to determine what gets censored.
> 
> If tolerance were the ideal, then no one would complain about anything. That would also mean that no one would complain about right-wing groups as well. Tolerance goes both ways or it's meaningless. To insist that one group can't voice their opinion means that no one can. Being intolerant towards someone who you deem as intolerant makes you intolerant as well. (wow...that's deep, huh?) And intolerant people apparently are the scum of the earth these days. In media, neither the left nor the right can win based upon the "tolerance" theory. It comes down to economics: which audience do they want to please the most?


Did I write, anywhere, that the PTC should not be allowed to complain or that their complaints be ignored? I simply asked whether the form-letter complaints from ONE very vocal group with a decided agenda be taken as representative of ALL viewers. Even with "hundreds of thousands" of complaints, that means the majority of viewers did NOT complain, so shouldn't that be taken into account, also?

It does seem a bit one-sided when you know that 99.9% of ALL complaints to the FCC for 2003 were generated by that one group, though. Just because you might agree with their agenda doesn't make it any more reasonable to the rest of the country who doesn't see a "homosexual agenda" on "Sesame Street" or becomes driven to uncontrollable fits of hysteria at the 1.2 second glimpse of a bare nipple.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

Have I mentioned today how much I despise these stupid religious freaks?


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

One thing that I have never understood about the Republicans:

1. They will defend the 2nd amendment to the death. They love their guns and nobody should tell them or restrict them from what guns they own. What guns they possess is their own homes is their own business. They are responsible and can protect their children from the guns that they own.

but

2. What 1st amendment? - They are going to protect your children from the horrors of TV and radio. They don't believe you have the right to watch or listen to whatever you want in your own home that comes over the "public" airways. What VChip? They believe that the open market is not capable determining public opinion.
A 21 year old can drive, vote, get drafted, kill for his/her country, drink alcohol, pay taxes, etc but they are not capable of determining what is proper for his/her children to watch????

Full disclosure: I don't undersand many things about the Democrats also. This seems to be the way most of the Republicans that I know think.


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

It looks like the FCC is going to leave Private Ryan alone:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/24/news/fortune500/private_ryan.reut/index.htm


----------



## deraz (Sep 25, 2004)

deraz said:


> The rumour here in DC is Kevin Martin.... scans of his bio and speech texts are pretty scary.


I hate to say it, but I told you so:

NEWS ALERT 
from The Wall Street Journal

March 16, 2005 
The White House is expected to name Kevin Martin as the new FCC chairman, succeeding Michael Powell, according to an administration official.


----------

