Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:58:31 -0400, Michael L Teter wrote:
Heard Mr. Hundt speak a while back at an industry get together, a very impressive individual and speaker, for sure! He could always spew it out by the yard.... He was also good at ignoring or disrespecting those of us in the field who were knowledgeable and involved in enforcing the FCC regulations, even those regs that he himself was pushing through. Perhaps he thought that FCC Regs could be complied with by some magical process. He came out to San Francisco for "an industry get together" and didn't have the decency to stop by the field office to show his face to the staff members there as other Commissioners and Chairmen usually do - part of having that rank. But his staff bag-carriers sure insisted that the field staff do all sorts of "gofer" and "fetch-it" jobs "for the Chairman", including motorcade security. We didn't mind doing it - that was -our- job - but loyalty, like respect, has got to be a two way street. Spoke at length about his tenure at the FCC. Did you ever hear Dick Wiley speak about -his- tenure at the Commission? He was the last decent Chairman, excepting for Jim Quello who was a damn good Commissioner and served a very short time as Acting Chairman only because the Prez was too embarassed not to designate him as such just before he retired. Both of the above knew how to run the Commission to get the work done properly and were very conscious of the fact that it was the technical staff that supported the Commissioners. IIRC Mr. Quello was the last Commissioner to have an Engineering Advisor as a full-time staff assistant. What an eye opener! Most noteworthy were his comments on the resistance to change at a dinasour of an agency. The changes that he wanted to make (and finally bludgeoned through) were to get the agency out of the technical spectrum management business as its primary function and into the "auction it off to the highest bidder" business as its primary function. If you consider that as the role of a telecommunications regulatory and spectrum management agency, I feel sorry for your ignorance. When enough of the pros who believed in proper professional spectrum management finally gave up in disgust, he succeeded. The resulting state of regulatory anarchy on "the airwaves" is the result. He would have been far more respected if he would have split the agency in two, getting The Congress to place the technical management and enforcement function - which he didn't understand - into an agency such as NTIA (as Canada did with DoC, now IC) and keeping the rest - which apparently he did understand - as a separate entity to play the political and auction games (as Canada does with its CRTC). Mike Teter, P.E., M.B.A., Ph.D Sumisunsansorg LTD I got letters too. Phil Kane, P.E., B.E.E., J.D..... CSI Telecommunications Communications Law Center FCC (retired) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NCVEC explains their licensing petition | Equipment | |||
NCVEC explains their licensing petition | Equipment | |||
FYI: QRZ Forum - NCVEC Petition & Comments | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
Sign in the petition against the abuse of the Band Plan forward this message to your buddies) | Dx |