Conflict of Interest May Taint DTV Delay Proposal 339
Anonymous writes "Ars Technica has discovered that one of the Obama transition team members advising on the digital TV transition has a conflict of interest that would benefit WiMAX carrier Clearwire over Verizon. 'Barack Obama's call to delay the DTV transition would affect not only millions of analog TV viewers, but also powerful companies with a vested interest in the changeover date — including at least one with an executive on Obama's transition team.'"
Same-ole, same-ole (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm probably naive (Score:5, Insightful)
rofl (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Impressive... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corruption scandal? Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
an old adage (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. As complicated as politics are and as interconnected as this world is, there's bound to be things that are overlooked. Of course, if you or I were becoming president, we wouldn't make such mistakes, eh?
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
At my work, I'm actually not allowed to have a vested interest in a competitor. But I guess government advisory boards can favor different companies if they want, based on vested interests of their advisory board members...
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)
Or is it that there are not yet enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
.... viewers switched over to support the economy (re: advertisers)?
Conflict of Interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Who released the hounds (Score:1, Insightful)
Cynicism and complaint are the resorts of losers and followers.
You try governing sometime, and see how many seconds you last before your foot is firmly
lodged in your mouth.
Misdiagnosing stupidity as malice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for rooting out scandals and Truth, Justice, and The American Way, but when you run the government, you can either pick people who've done things, or who you really like. And people who have done things will have prior relationships with other people, organizations, and businesses.
Let's judge POTUS on what he does, not on what his contacts or their contacts might want.
Delaying the deadline is a dumb idea. We make deadlines so everybody can plan the switch. This transition has been planned for a long time. It's been heavily advertised. The switch will be painful for lots of poor folks who can't afford new equipment or who are bedridden and can't go shopping, but delaying the transition won't change that cold reality.
Keep the train on schedule, Obama.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.
But when that conflict of interest results in government policy which favors those interests, at the expense of competitors, that's potentially unethical. Of such things, corruption scandals are made.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean an issue does not exist. Just because some big company is going to benefit from a delay in DTV rollouts, does that mean we should cut off our nose to spite our face?
President Elect Obama has a reasonable argument that the market is not ready for DTV. I personally think that it will never be ready for the DTV changeover and that we'll need to do it the hard way anyway, but that's just my opinion. The government had a specific way they wanted this done. They have yet to achieve that goal.
Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service.
Until the FCC gets much closer to achieving their goals for this changeover, Mr. Obama has a reasonable point.
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)
So we have one example of where private enterprise bans conflicting interests and one where government also bans conflicts of interest, but it sounds like that may have been compromised.
Not to say that government as good as private enterprise or better, but that's some shady logic you're using to for a general indictment of government.
Re:Delays my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
People who haven't switched over yet probably won't ever do it, so just make the damn cut-over and wait for the inevitable news stories about people being left without TV. These stories are going to happen whether you make the switch now or 10 years from now, so just do it already.
The people that haven't done anything about this switch by now must never actually watch their TV, since we've been subjected to crawls about it for more than a year on every broadcast channel, so they won't care anyway. Either that or they've just been too lazy, in which case the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.
Just get this crap over and done with so we can move on already.
Re:Who released the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod disclaimer - I don't support one more than the other. I think just about any politician that's done what it takes to get to the presidency is bound to be a shyster.
OT : Why cancel analog? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting analog is a requirement of DTV?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service."
Are you kidding me? For the small percentage that don't have cable / satellite, how could you possibly miss the unending (and extremely irritating) ads on all the main broadcasting stations about the change, how to know if you'll need to get a converter box, where to get one, how to get a discount / free one, and where to find more information if you still have questions? Anyone who's still unaware or confused about things has something seriously wrong with them to have missed out on this for the last year or else never uses a TV and as such it doesn't affect them anyways.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I seem to remember the massive calls for Cheney's head because he was the CEO of Halliburton prior to being elected VP (of course, by that time he had stepped down and divested all shares of that company). All in the name of "conflict of interest"...
The rules work differently depending on which party's partisans happen to have the most mod points when such comments are made.......
Re:Same-ole, same-ole (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, Obama's campaign wasn't really centered around "I'm going to vet every single postion I fill much more rigorously than anyone ever has before." Not that discovering the present case would have been too dificult to discover, but it's a long shot from Obama saying "You know what? Let's hire someone with conflicting interest on something fairly minor. Make a little extra cash and potentially making things just a little more interesting before I even take office."
Calling it corruption is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Keep people off the rooftops in Feb. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you do have a converter box, or and HDTV with an antenna, you still don't know what you will be able to receive until after the transition, because some stations will move their broadcast frequency. Also, once the analog broadcasts stop, you'll be able to receive some fringe signals that were overwhelmed by them.
Re:Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. It's terrible when political officials in high positions make decisions that conflict with their real world corporate jobs. *coughcheneyhalliburtoncough*
What's the relevance of bringing up Cheney in this manner? Surely your argument isn't that the Bush Administration did it so now the Obama Administration should do it as well?
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, there is a difference between a company and a government. A company inherently operates in a particular sector. They have a fairly well-defined scope so it's reasonably easy to pick out who their direct competitors are, who their partners are, and what companies they have no particular link to.
High-level government officials and teams, however, inherently have some level of influence over every imaginable sector/industry. Which means that the chance of a conflict-of-interest arising becomes much higher (if you pick a random economic sector, and you have a group of 10 people, there's a good chance that one of those people will gain or lose in some way depending on decisions made; whether it be because of owning stock, having a family member employed by that industry, etc.).
That having been said, government officials should absolutely be held to a very high standard on conflict-of-interest cases. The appropriate action here would be for that particular Obama team member to recuse himself from any decision-making related to that particular issue. He can remain active in other aspects of planning, but should absolutely not touch anything related to this conflict-of-interest (and the planning/execution should be done in a transparent way so that the public can be confident that he wasn't involved).
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
and had been found that his statements that he had removed financial ties to himself and Halliburton to be "steeped in loopholes and legalese and avoidance".
You were saying?
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the record was when Rush Limbaugh christened the Obama recession [rushlimbaugh.com] two days after Obama was ELECTED.
Re:Who released the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynicism and complaint are the resorts of losers and followers.
Actually I'd make the argument that as Americans we are supposed to have a healthy amount of skepticism/cynicism towards our Government. As far as complaining goes, that was written into the 1st amendment ("petition the Government for a redress of grievances") as I recall.
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my understanding, yes. Though that doesn't completely remove potential conflicts of interest. Trading political favors comes to mind as one way to work around a divestment of assets.
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
When Barack Obama stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's corruption. When George W. Bush stocks his staff with industry insiders, it's just politics as usual.
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
And thanks to his transparency he's shown throughout his Vice Presidency there have been zero questionable activities at all. Those secret energy meetings were kept from the public because they were too "technical" for us. And Halliburton/KBR really did earn all those no bid contracts in Iraq.
Re:Delays my ass (Score:2, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. Short of mailing every household in the US a converter box, there is no way to avoid some people receiving a snowstorm.
Correction; even if they mailed every household in the US a converter, you will still receive complaints of people not being able to watch <insert-crappy-show-here>.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to Chicago Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
"He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way!"
Not neccesarily a conflict (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy may have an interest in the outcome, but he and Obama have a point: the public isn't ready for the changeover, and won't be until those coupons are in their hands (and maybe not even then, but they'll have the coupon for the box and if they choose not to use it that's their problem). It sounds to me like delaying the changeover for a month or two to give time to fund the coupon program is in the public interest. It'll hurt some companies and benefit others, but it seems to me that the only problem would be if the government decided to not delay the change because of the effects on those companies if they did. Unless someone can come up with a good argument why having analog TV broadcasts go dark for apparently a significant fraction of viewers is in the public interest (I think you could make that argument, but it'd require things from the companies that they aren't currently doing).
Yes, and too bad the mainstream media (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's called a blind trust (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't get a deferred salary in a blind trust. As you say, nice try with the talking points.
Re:Not neccesarily a conflict (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy may have an interest in the outcome, but he and Obama have a point: the public isn't ready for the changeover, and won't be until those coupons are in their hands (and maybe not even then, but they'll have the coupon for the box and if they choose not to use it that's their problem).
That is, in reality, the actual problem.
Theoretical funding for the coupons has run out, but that's assuming all coupons are redeemed. There are quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth that have not been. Although it is extremely unlikely they will be, the goverment can't just issue more coupons without money behind them.
The correct solution is just to have Congress allow another $100M or so of coupons to be printed, with the caveat that all coupons (even those previously issued) must be redeemed by March 1, 2009 (or some other very near, hard cutoff date).
Also, I really hated the fact that anybody could ask for coupons. I know people who have already invested over $10K in HDTV equipment who asked for them. I don't know if they used them, but it seems silly to me that they would, since they can only be used to purchase basically inferior devices (limited to 480i output). But, those coupons count against the budget.
Let's say what you are saying is true (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.
1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
2) Invade Iraq
3) ????
4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
5) Profit.
In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.
This guy isn't even on staff... (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy in question has made some campaign contributions (apparently around $17,000).
He has an impressive history in the industry and as a lobbyist in DC. The guy has been around, knows his technical info, and knows who to talk to in DC.
But.... He is not on Obama's staff. It appears that he was invited to some of the campaign parties, and that he has (post election) been invited to one or more meetings as a consultant with the head of Obama's Science and Technology working group. A group headed by Tom Wheeler, who has ties to a back bone provider that may have a better chance at profiting with no delay in the DTV conversion.
In summary, some guy who doesn't work for Obama has an opinion that might or might not lead to a more profitable situation for a company, and he has shared that opinion with someone who possibly has a different opinion that might or might not lead to a more profitable situation for another company, who works for a man that has an opinion that he has hopefully come to after listening to people with different motivations and goals, and weighed each of their opinions against each other and against what he hopes to accomplish while in charge.
I'm failing to see how this is at all "scandal". We already knew that Obama was soliciting advice from people who he disagreed with. The fact that he is talking to lobbyists from opposing sides of these arguments at least indicates that he is trying to get a better picture than what any individual (even those on his staff) are able to paint for him.
-Rick
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't give obama's people a pass just because you're sympathetic to his politics.
The proper remedy here is not disclosure, it is recusing the person with the conflict of interest from participating in the decision.
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
I voted against Obama, because I think his political views are nonsense.
Many voted against Obama because many of his views generally are nonsense and just about every significant opinion held on current affairs have proved to be the wrong opinion to hold. Many voted against Obama because they believe in the US Constitution. Obama seemingly likes to pick and choose the parts he likes. He'd rather the 2nd amendment go away. Conversely, many voted for Obama because he wasn't Republican and is black.
Many voted against McCain because he's white, Republican, and told voters the truth. McCain has been at this long enough to know better. The public doesn't want the truth, they want to feel warm and fuzzy - and that's what Obama does for many.
In short order we'll have an idea of his leadership capabilities but based on what we know so far, real solutions won't originate from him. Frankly, the fact he's trying hard to surround himself with dissenting opinions does give hope he realizes he doesn't have the answers.
Why cancel analog? Money. (Score:4, Insightful)
The question makes perfect sense, as does the answer.
"Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting [of] analog [service] is a requirement of DTV?"
The transition to DTV frees up radio spectrum space currently used by analog. That space is very valuable, and has been sold/licensed for hundreds of billions of dollars. Those who will use the space have a pressing need to access that space ASAP - both to be able to use it at all, and to recoup their very large investment (every delayed day costs them millions in lost revenue).
Yes, technically, DTV can co-exist alongside analog TV. But as most broadcasters & viewers transition to DTV, maintaining that legacy service stalls other technical advancements (ex.: 4G) which would serve a whole lotta people for a whole lotta profit.
Translation: DTV requires cutting analog TV service because not doing so means you (and 50 million other people) don't get your 4G video cell phone just because Gramma wants to watch some podunk TV channel on her 1962-vintage television.
Re:Same-ole, same-ole (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the name "Rupert Murdoch" ring a bell?
In 2003 he owned over 175 newspapers, and every single one of them were pushing pro-Iraq Invasion editorials.
The media is STILL pussy footing Bush. Just a few days ago he said that it was "unfortunate" that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Talk about the most self-centered and retarded things to say. We are extremely fortunate that there were no WMDs found. If they had been found that would mean that 1) There are/were people in Iraq with the knowledge to make them again, and 2) That there are likely more of them in different storage facilities or being off loaded on the black market.
To call it "unfortunate" that we destroyed a country and killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions more, is a grievous understatement.
The only reason why it is "unfortunate" is because it will forever tarnish Bush's record in the history books.
Yet the media just sweeps away the statement. The guy makes a statement showing that his primary concern is his legacy, not the security of the country, nor the millions of people affected by the war.
Not that I'm a sunshine-daisy Obama optimist. He strikes me as more of a centrist republicrat than a lefty liberal. But taking over after Bush, he'll be hard pressed to do worse.
-Rick
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a rabid right-winger, who dislikes the issues Obama stands for, I have to disagree on the remedy. In my mind, it's both. Disclosure, but participation in the discussion. And no voting (actual say) on the decision. Allow the rest of the team (and citizens in general) to know his background, but recognise that though there may be a vested interest, he may actually be an expert in the field. Making such a decision without people who actually care (vested interest) and are technical experts in a field is pretty much about as stupid as making the same decision and letting the vested interest (especially an economic interest) run roughshod over the process.
By all means, bring in the experts. Just don't let the ones who will financially benefit actually vote on the outcome.
And I say this without regard to political party.
It goes exactly to your point (Score:2, Insightful)
But Cheney simply does not make military contractor policy, something watched like a hawk by the congressional armed services committees and their friends in the military and private contractors (i.e., the Iron Triangle). You'd have an easier time stealing a wildebeest from a pack of lions than you would poaching a major military contract from the Iron Triangle.
If you want to see a conflict of interest, look at the members of congress with naval contractors in their districts and states. Or better yet, how much money Obama took from the dreaded entertainment industry [opensecrets.org] and how he ends up serving the MPAA and the RIAA. Or how his Transportation Secretary nominee benefited donors with his earmarks [opensecrets.org].
But when we have a politician with no policy-making role that effects his pocketbook, then there is no conflict of interest. That's why it matters that Cheney did not and could not make policy that rewarded him through Haliburton. It isn't a conflict that someone inadvertently profits from a decision of government which he did not make!
you instead resort to accusing me of equating him to Darth Vader, being aware of the 9/11 plot, planning to invade Iraq.
Your powers of extrapolation are... astounding.
No, I have just read the repeated posts here, on Dailykos, on HuffPost, alleging just what I "extrapolated." Several posters in this very thread have made similar arguments.
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology. I find it hard to believe because in a thread about an Obama conflict of interest, rather than being outraged by it, you bring up a tenuous at best conflict from a war launched in 2003 - by a Republican.
I wonder if I looked back at your posting history, would you be one of those who criticized the "but...Clinton!" crowd defending Bush?
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
It was doing that pretty much from September 1st onward.
No it wasn't. The market pretty much tanked from October 1st to the 10th (lost about 2000 points) before rebounding a little. I believe this was about the same time that Bush made the emergency request for $700 billion to "rescue" the banks.
However, the market was tumbling daily from 9625 points on November 4th, down to 7552 points on November 20th. I believe that's right around the time Obama finally spoke up about how he probably wouldn't be raising taxes. The market has closed well above that point every day since.
Re:Impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to be a partisan hack troller, you can at least try to get your simple, easy to check facts right.
Bush did not say that it was "unfortunate" -- that is entirely your word. You've built up and entire impassioned head of righteous steam over something you are either lying about, or never bothered to check (ironic after you chastised the media for alleged inaction). Look it up in the transcript if you don't believe me. Here, I'll even do it for you:
Q And I'm not trying to play "gotcha," but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think, in retrospect, that you have made any mistakes? And if so, what is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?
Bush: ... ... snip ...
There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way. ...
Re:Impressive... (Score:1, Insightful)
He's used this singular example and claimed that it would be a reason governments have a tendency to run worse than private enterprises.
If you can't see the flaw in that logic you're not being nitpicky enough.
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S.
I should add that Obama's whole proposal of postponing the date is ridiculous, and deflates my confidence in his intelligence. I thought he had a high IQ, but now I'm not so sure. And even if Obama is unaware of the DTV transition issues, his advisers should be aware but they are giving him poor advice. There are several reasons not to delay:
- I already went-out and bought the boxes. I'm prepared and ready to switch to DTV, as are many many many other people.
- TV stations have already hired and scheduled:
--- technicians to arrive on February 17
--- new antennas to install on same date
--- advertising to tell consumers that February 17 is the deadline
- The transition has been in progress for ten years. (From 1999 to 2009.) It's already been postponed from December 31, 2006 to 2009. People have had plenty of time to prepare themselves with new DTV televisions and/or DTV boxes. We should no more postpone the date a 2nd time for these procrastinators than we postpone the April 15 date for tax payments. If people can't get off their overweight asses and get a box, then too bad for them. Again: They've had ten years.
Th only thing that should be done is approve more money for coupons, so they are available well into March and thereby assist people with the upgrade, but otherwise the 2/17 date should stand.