Slashdot Mirror
FCC Seeks To Improve US Broadband Access
MojoKid writes "The US Federal Communications Commission
is working on a plan to solve the problem of nationwide access to high-speed Internet service. The three main issues the agency is tackling first are, figuring out how to improve availability, quality and affordability. Acting FCC Chairman Michael J.
Copps held a meeting this week where he asked the public to comment on the national broadband plan, which Congress has demanded be done by February. The public has 60 days to submit comments; the agency and members of the public will be able to reply to comments for an additional 30 days after that."
The Porno for Podunk Plan
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Next time you auction off spectrum that could be used for JUST THIS PURPOSE, stop setting the minimum bids at astronomical numbers. "Public benefit" doesn't necessarily mean "get as much money for the gov't as possible".
Some good 700 MHz spectrum, at cheap to nothing rates, would spur small businesses to be created to provide access at costs much more in line with what people can pay. You know, if the entry costs weren't more than the GDP of a 3rd World Nation it might spur some innovation.
Then reduce the bureaucracy and cost of getting a license to use that spectrum.
Idiots.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Make it harder for companies to have monopolies or duopolies. This is the system that's in place in most areas of the nation outside big cities.
Other companies may technically have an opportunity to join in and provide service to the people, but in practice it's just not possible anymore.
A friend of mine used to work at an ISP in New Hampshire. His company sent letters to all of their customers basically saying "Please support the legislation that will limit Verizon's stranglehold on New Hampshire". The ISPs connection to the outside world (provided by Verizon, surprise-surprise) went down that night. Two days later, they got a Verizon employee on the phone who apparently wasn't "in on it", and he was like "Oh, how did this configuration get changed?" and turned their connection back on.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Try this already? What..with the billions of dollars given to them already...and monopolies given to them..the tax breaks...etc. This is just buying some CEO a new boat.
'Number-memorizing Chinese people.'-Anon
Fixing the broadband issue is a last mile problem and just about the only method to address that at the moment
is through wireless. Now I am sure that the govt will step right up and give the big telecos a bunch of cash and
tell them to go forth and provide more broadband. Trouble is the big telecos do not provide last mile wireless coverage
mom and pop shops do. This is not a hard issue to fix if the money is placed in the right places.
Got Code?
Uh, February of which year?
Not that Congress can get anything right done by February of any year.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And how, exactly, are we supposed to comment on this plan? For that matter, what IS this plan?
Can someone translate it into English for the rest of us?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I thought the Invisible Market Fairy was supposed to handle this??!?!
Isn't this how the internet began? Independant, competing companies all competing to produce a cohesive, compatible online environment? Why is that model not working now?
Lazziez faire doesn't work in reality.
In a perfect world, companies would want to profit. They would always look ahead to the future to ensure that they only took what the market could bear, for breaking the market would break their company just the same.
This is not a perfect world. Companies want to profit and destroy the competition and lock in their customers. They want to collude to lock out your cell phone's features that you paid several times over retail for, they want to change your contracts after you sign them and still bind you to them, they want to pack in all kinds of hidden fees and charges sixty-three pages deep into their contract, and most of all, they want to please the shareholders.
The shareholders ensure that only the biggest assholes will be in upper management. The shareholders want their profit check and they want it now. Who cares if the company isn't in business in 20 years? The shareholders have enough money to buy stock in other companies, and run them into the ground too.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Demand that all service providers act as common carriers, or "dumb pipes", if you will. To insure access for everybody, the basic infrastructure must be managed by a publicly accountable entity, the government, just like the roads. And these "roads" must accept all kinds of traffic. No tiering, no filtering, none of that. The "last mile" can be leased out to those who will accept these conditions. We need consumer protection with real teeth. They won't do it unless they hear from us. So speak up, and speak LOUD. I am formulating my letter at this very moment. To those of you who want to leave it up to the market, I respectfully remind you of the AM stereo debacle, and American cell phone service.
What?
I'm happy with my current DSL service. I just wish it was half the cost and the DSL provider stop bugging me to upgrade to a faster and more expensive package. Shouldn't basic DSL pricing be treated the same way as dial-up (i.e., cheap and slow)?
To eliminate bandwidth caps.
Doesn't do much good to have it if you cant use it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No bandwidth caps.
Drop the storage cost to what Japan charges.
And stop whining about it.
This country is so far behind it's sickening.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Trouble is the bi[g] telecos do not provide last mile wireless covera[g]e mom and pop shops do. This is not a hard issue to fix if the money is placed in the ri[g]ht places.
And the telcos have been spending it on 3G (UMTS, EVDO) technologies. Three G, like what I quoted.
Lazziez faire doesn't work in reality.
Oh, for christ's sake...
Companies want to profit and destroy the competition and lock in their customers.
What do you think these eeevil companies use to attack their competition? Hint: it starts with a "g", and ends with "overnment".
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
IMHO, the telcos and cable companies are why we have some of the worst "broadband" access in our homes. They've been dragging their feet, similar to the way the RIAA has been, fighting tooth and nail to not give the customers what they want.
As much as I'm for better broadband, I'm extremely against giving it to the telcos to implement. We already gave them $2 billion to develop Fiber To The Home by 2000. As of 2009 I know of almost noone who has or even can get this service, it's only in a couple of hot spots where you can get it.
Worse, the telcos seem to see high speed home networks as competition for their business services, so they dramatically limit the outbound rates. 900kbps is a pretty small pipe to push backups of my home systems across, for example.
I personally like the ideas of "homes with tails", the home owners owning the fiber from their houses to a pedestal or "meet me" location, and then the providers can get access in there and users can get different options for that connectivity.
Sean
Eliminate stupid practices like bandwidth caps & metered usage designed to squeeze out competition from online video services while abusing the government-granted monopoly position.
I'm looking at TW in Rochester, San Antonio, and 4 other cities. You know who you are.
We need to bust the local monopolies. They don't like to provide service to remote areas. They don't have any incentive to provide quality. And what people usually think when you mention "monopoly" - they charge high prices.
Unfortunately when the government wants to do something like improve service or availability their "solution" is usually to throw money at the monopoly and tell them to do it - which generally doesn't happen and we're out the tax dollars. Remember the extra charges from the phone company to support fiber deployment - didn't happen, and I think we're still paying that. So lets sit down and fuck the public some more!
Yeah right I would like to see them make broadband less expensive. And for their next trick, they can pull a white rabbit out of their ass. We live in an age where likes of Comcast can bundle their service for $100 a month, and make it sound like it's a deal. $100 fuckin' dollars, that's a lot of money.
Really when do they want to do this?
I think everyone reading slashdot wants this to happen, and knows what would make it happen. The only question here is can government ignore the lobbyists long enough to do the right thing.
Think Deeply.
We all want FTTH (fiber to the home). Just do it already.
-=[ place
Of course, no one will be able to afford to use the full 100mbit before they break their cap of 5GB. But they'll have it!
You can read the Word or PDF version of the FCC's National Broadband Plan - request for public comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/ I think many of you should take the time. I read 1/3 of it today. Some of their questions they are requesting comments on are pretty politically charged depending on which side of this fence you are on. The section on how best to promote video support on the internet --- The Cable Companies like Comcast, Time Warner etc are doing everything they can to squash that by putting CAPs on monthly bandwidth usage... which pretty much guarantees to stifle Cable's captured market for Movies/TV. Then there are what seem to be simple questions but if you think about them... they are not. How much bandwidth is required to have "adequate" Broadband --- most of us would say unlimited but then that's probably not practical to implement so what is a good answer. The FCC's document is well written. It requests input by ANYONE, just submit in Word or PDF format. They are asking for examples of what works in other countries and what doesn't. They are asking for answers to questions about WiMAX, Cable, DSL etc. Take some time and comment... or only the large corporations will and you'll get what get.
Maybe they can start by stopping Time Warner Cable from slashing the access of about 10 million Americans. That would be a great start.
FCC doesn't regulate Time Warner's High Speed Internet. Each State does it individually. So talk to your State's regulatory commission
Oh, come on! The guy that's always claiming this is a population density problem hasn't replied yet. I always like making fun of him. Where are you, Mr. Density guy?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Bring back the '96 telco reform act which helped quite a bit in leveling the playing field with the monopolies of phone companies. It forced the ILECs to allow interconnections with small upstart phone companies. It wasn't perfect - it included things like the Communications Decency Act within it - but it opened the way for many of the thousands of ISPs to be able to offer service.
Bush and Powell's kid running the FCC did away with essentially all of the changes. Since then all the baby bells are bigger and stronger than Ma bell ever used to be. Many CLECs are gone, the non-monopoly ISPs are almost all gone. The monopolies are stronger than ever.
Or even simpler, just demand that previous agreements made with the telco companies would be met by the telcos. We'd already have huge patches of fiber to the home if the telcos did that.
What needs to happen is the one that provides the connection to the house should not provide the service. The government then regulates the infrastructure provider/maintainers. The service providers then sit on that infrastructure.
For example, here in Utah we have UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, http://www.utopianet.org/). UTOPIA themselves provide the fiber to the premise. Then you sign up with the providers on the network. There are a handful of different ISPs that provide service over it (including Qwest!). You can choose based on whatever meets your fancy. ISP too oversubscribed? Choose another one.
The fiber delivers internet, phone, and tv. Here at my office we have a symmetric 30Mbs connection for about $110. Makes me hate to go home to my Comcast connection...
The problem is the only motivation for the infrastructure provider is to keep the ISPs and governments to off their backs. The government should own the infrastructure and then private companies should compete for the maintenance contracts. Hopefully somebody in the city knows something about an SLA... /br
Lazziez faire has been tried before and failed to bring abundance to the people as its supports claim it will, just like trickle down economics. Free market capitalism would work great if the private sector didn't manipulate the market to eradicate the very thing that makes capitalism work for the people: competition. Also, do you really want to take a step closer to anarcho-capitalism? The conglomerates have enough power as it is, at least with the government they have to actually go through the effort of bribing someone before they start stealing the land from under our houses.
Lazziez faire has been tried before and failed to bring abundance to the people as its supports claim it will,
Freedom promotes prosperity. Historical examples of this simple fact are too numerous to ignore.
Free market capitalism would work great if the private sector didn't manipulate the market to eradicate the very thing that makes capitalism work for the people: competition.
Who acts to limit competition, sparky? Right now, there's a move by interior decorators (seriously) to require state licensing to exclude new competitors from their line of work. When people don't want to compete, they turn to..... That's right, GOVERNMENT to outlaw their competition. So, you want government to have the power to do so? Great plan.
The conglomerates have enough power as it is,
This is true, but what you fail to recognize is that the power they have doesn't come from the market, it comes from greasing politicians.
bribing someone before they start stealing the land from under our houses.
Hey, tell me about how the government protects us from having our land taken away by evil corporations. Oh, wait. It turns out that government doesn't protect us from land-grabs, it actually does the land-grabbing under orders from those who will pay more in taxes than the rightful owners.
So, you're afraid of big businesses? Monopolies? Well, government is the ultimate monopoly, and it's not on your side.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
not to be trite, but well said jcr. possibly the only meaningful posts in this entire thread. none of these pipe dreams will come to fruition unless more people realize big government
If they have ANY common sense, and are aware of the problems going on now, they will include stipulations that:
1. Service providers CANNOT oversell their bandwidth on the new networks,
2. Service providers CANNOT throttle customers on the new networks,
3. Agree and understand that the public owns the infrastructure, and NOT THEM,
4. That they can be fined for poor customer service,
5. Service providers CANNOT change contracts or force customers to sign new contracts when they change them that customers have already agreed to,
6. Cannot impose cap limits.
7. Rent the infrastructure from the public at a reasonable, publicly agreed rate,
8. Are not allowed to hold a "municipal monopoly",
9. Infrastructure cannot be purchased from the public, and can only be maintained and rented from the public.
10. Service providers cannot restrict content, inject advertising, prohibit ad-blocking, or record activity.
Although the chances of these being proposed, let alone accepted, are next to nil, there is bound to be SOME service provider that will notice the opportunity to offer services that no other major ISP will agree to, thereby nailing the market because large ISPs will not want the conditions. It's the same principle as satellite radio: People do not like commercials instead of music, and will pay a reasonable monthly fee to avoid having to listen to them. The terms are very hostile to large ISPs, and will allow smaller providers that are not as financially unstable and profit-centered as the large providers. Smaller companies tend to be more focused on service and reputation, while larger companies are focused on profit.
Seeing as how the Obama (Mis)administration has demonstrated its lack of concern for consumers, I highly doubt that it will require anything even *remotely* close to such conditions.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Most of your modern reality that makes its way to your ideal urban pad with your high speed connection is heavily subsidized in order to happen. Your water is brought in with public maintained pipelines, and the cost of the water itself is laughably low, because it is government seized and provided to you. Your electricity comes from rural areas where the transmission lines and towers are just plunked onto private land where they receive no transit fees, it is just seized from them, and you get to enjoy much cheaper electricity from that government "subsidy" of outright theft. Your food is brought to you over publicly built and maintained roads, imagine what that would cost if all the roads were privately maintained toll roads, where a new fee had to be paid to each owner as it crossed property lines, etc. Your natural gas for heating and hot water, again, it comes from rural areas and is brought to you at an extremely low cost compared to if the pipelines had to negotiate transit frees from every property owner between you and the gas well head. And so on, there's a rather decent list there.
So when are you going to pay a reasonable fair market rate for all that stuff, avoiding the public subsidy you currently enjoy, or when are you moving to where all of that comes from? Why should the rural areas provide you with those necessities for cheaper than fair market rates or outright free when it comes to water?
I know this is "news for nerds" and us nerds have just GOT to have broadband, but is this really a problem?
Believe it or not, there are still places in this country that don't have telephone service, or just got it. Do you think their lives were less full or less meaningful because of this absence?
I really see this as an entitlement problem. Sure, broadband internet access is great for certain things, but almost all of those things are something people can easily survive without. You are not entitled to a cheap, all-pervasive internet backbone just because it's something you want.
I'm sure it provides some brief little endorphine kick when you log onto twitter or your blog and scream at some ahole because you're right and he's wrong, but isn't that really an activity that can be done without? And it certainly can be done in 5 minutes on a dial-up instead of 5 seconds on DSL.
I know this is hard for some of us nerds to get through our heads, but high-speed internet access is really just a convenience. And while we may consider it highly necessary for some of the things we do day-to-day, it is not fundamentally necessary for everyone in order to have a fulfilling life.
So go ahead, I'd love to hear an actual rational argument for why money should be taken by threat of force or incarceration and used to force people who may not even want a given service to at the very least accept a "hook-up" for that service so that the future owners of their home will be able to become subscribers to some internet service.
You are looking at the sad FCC limitations on WiFi. The low power restrictions make it useless for Broadband Access. In that regard You are correct. I will add that he current Broadband providers want to push this misconception! Are you one of them?
The truth of the matter is that Apple Computer Co.(remember them?) know better and have tried to get spectrum allocated for Broadband Access a few times. But Broadband providers seem to lobby the FCC and we lose.
Also Broadband is not TV. If you want TV get a cable. I want Email, web content, and to play MMOs. Oh and I bet your cable does not actually give you a 10Mb data path. proper WiFi, not the FCC trash we currently have will give us a around 10Mb per user. So Apple's claimed in its design for a metropolitan area.
So WiFi should be better then cable or Fiber. Since the providers will offen not provide that much through put.
Ref: Kutztown Pennsylvania.
I'm sending this over 10 mbit fiber from the town that costs less than your 4 mbit cable.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
There is nobody better-versed in Internet speeds and access than slashdot readers. And the FCC is open to comments for the next sixty days. In my article, I am urging people to comment to the FCC during this period and I am hoping they have lots of really good suggestions from people who are well-informed rather than ill-informed.
I do note that the FCC has an "acting" director, which means Republicans in the Senate have held up confirmation of yet another Obama appointee for political (read not-useful) reasons.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
How in America, we seem to have lost the concept of continously upgrading our own infrastructure? When was the last time anyone can remember a significant (>50 miles) of road being constructed where there was no road before? It seems like we've lost all motivation to make America any better in a sense of infrastructure and I think even this will end up being just talk because A.) The cost alone to offer broadband to the "boonies" will be enormous and B.) the people in "rural" areas, when surveyed, didn't much care about getting broadband internet access, since they all seemed to have the mentality that since they don't have it now, they can't miss it.
Also, do a side by side comparison of our Cellular networking compared to countries like China or Japan. Hell even countries like Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Brazil, etc have better/faster/more efficient Cellular networks then we do in America.
Part of the multi-hundred billion dollar bailout, should have been geared towards updating our infrastructure and had it writtin in a way that would force the construction to begin, before a $ of the bailout reached anyone's hands.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
exactly ! my cable company has a local monopoly on broadband... because of the local government. service always goes down as government involvement goes up.
Lazziez faire doesn't work in reality.
Oh, for christ's sake...
Companies want to profit and destroy the competition and lock in their customers.
What do you think these eeevil companies use to attack their competition? Hint: it starts with a "g", and ends with "overnment".
-jcr
Are you saying that a truly free market can only exists when it is an unregulated market?
I'm sorry jcr, but I just can't see things from your one-sided point of view. The government isn't perfect, but neither are corporations. SOMEONE is going to regulate the market in the name of their own interests.
You also imply that using the government is the ONLY way a company can obtain a monopoly, which is false. With limited resources and/or a limited supply, it's easy for a company to create a monopoly by simply buying up all the resources and supplies to corner the market. You may argue that any competitor is free to enter the market and compete, but a large enough company is able to use its size and clout to undercut such competitors, by lowering prices to even unprofitable levels just to kill of the competitors or by manipulating suppliers by threatening to cut them off, and put them out of business fairly quickly. This is even without mentioning oligopolies which only require competitors to drop their swords and start screwing the customer in unison.
What we need is a healthy amount of regulation on the sectors that need it and a healthy amount of deregulation for that sectors that need the extra freedom. Either extreme, whether it be Lazziez faire or socialism, would be bad for the people. A combination of both free market and regulated market is what is needed, and what we have now. Considering that the U.S. is one of the top 10 free markets in the world, we're already leaning towards the former, so a little more regulation isn't going to hurt us.
I've never said that the government ALWAYS does the right thing and protects us from corporations stealing our land from under our noses. What I said is that if a corporation wanted to take your land, they'll find a way with or without the government's help. BTW, those laws saying that a corporation can't just come and steal your land? They'd be worthless without a government to enforce them. You say the government is corrupt, so let's just get rid of the government and see who enforces those laws, yay anarcho-capitalism!
I've admitted that the government isn't perfect and there are politicians out there who are corrupt to the bone, but you can't seem to admit that letting equally self-interested corporations do what they please is just as bad.
Your naivete is tragic.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As soon as one company reaches a critical mass, it can buy out all the competition and any future competition. Thus you inevitably end up with monopolies.
Interesting hypothesis. Got any historical examples of this happening? I know it's the standard canard that's trotted out to justify government interference in business mergers.
BTW, your claim that a company can buy out any future competition is absurd.
Read up on some economics in wikipedia
I suggest you read Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
For the best examples of what AC is talking about, you only have to research U.S. History of the late 1800s to the early 1900s, when monopolies were aggressively taking over several sectors of the U.S. economy. Take Standard Oil for example, at one point they controlled the entire oil refining industry, giving them a monopoly over the supply of refined oil in the U.S. They created this monopoly themselves, WITHOUT government help, by using anti-competitive tactics like bullying distributors into providing them lower prices and artificially keeping their prices so low that any competitors went bankrupt or had no choice but to be bought out by Standard Oil (this is what AC is talking about, and it is not absurd, it actually happens). In fact, it was the government that had to break up the monopoly in order to restore competition in the market. You have studied U.S. History, haven't you?
I love it when people retort with childish insults, it shows that they are out of sources or evidence to support their side of the debate with.
Take Standard Oil for example, at one point they controlled the entire oil refining industry, giving them a monopoly over the supply of refined oil in the U.S.
Nope. They got a very high market share, but never gained a monopoly. In fact, their market share was declining by the time the government broke them up in 1911. Increasing demand for gasoline made the oil business attractive to other investors. Rockefeller's peak was during the time when the most important petroleum products were kerosene and heating oil.
Rockefeller gained this massive market share by very aggressively dropping his prices. The upshot is that he served his customers better than the competition, and his business grew. Rockefeller's crime was not the success of Standard Oil, it was his role in creating the Federal Reserve.
You have studied U.S. History, haven't you?
I've clearly done so in rather more depth than you have.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
shows that they are out of sources or evidence
It can also mean that I've given up on trying to enlighten you. The evidence is all around you. We're in the midst of yet another government-induced bust that may very well turn into the greatest depression to date, and you still argue that government is the solution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They had 91% of the market share in the U.S. In several local markets they did have a monopoly. You don't have to have 100% market share to be considered a monopoly, you simply have to have "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
"The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and its nineteen subsidiary corporations were declared today by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade.
It was otherwise held to be monopolizing interstate commerce in violation of the Sherman anti-trust law. The dissolution of the combination was ordered to take place within six months."
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761594048/supreme_couhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/2243214&from=rss#rt_rules_standard_oil_company_is_illegal_trust.html
That sure sounds like a monopoly to me! Maybe you should revisit your history lessons.
Evidently you haven't given up on enlightening me, although you still don't have any sources.
Also, I believe the government did have a hand in the recession we are in now. It's very clear that interest rates were dropped to extremely low rates and money printed like mad so that the velocity of money could be used to pay for the war in Iraq without having to raise taxes. This is a flaw in the government and it needs to be fixed, but it doesn't mean that everything the government does economically is bad.
I've never denied the government's culpability, but I believe that the private sector's irresponsibility is also to blame. I don't understand how, when AIG is handing out credit-default swaps on mortgages which are clearly going into default, that this is the government's responsibility? Shouldn't AIG, and many of these other financial institutions been doing a better job at managing their risk? No one held a gun to AIG's head when it was handing out the swaps.
. I don't understand how, when AIG is handing out credit-default swaps on mortgages which are clearly going into default, that this is the government's responsibility?
AIG's overextension is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is the inflation of fiat money, which will always create a bubble wherever it enters the market. The real estate bubble is only the latest one.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
AIG's poor risk management is completely their responsibility. It was that poor risk management which rendered them virtually insolvent. Bubble or no bubble, if they had responsibly managed their risk they wouldn't have approached the brink of collapse, ready to take their investors and a potential huge chunk of the economy with them. There's a reason some financial institutions have done OK and some have not. Those who did OK did not overextend themselves. Businesses like AIG had a choice, just like any other business, and they chose to completely ignore the risk they were taking and simply gorge on the available money. Like an over eater at a buffet, they showed absolutely no restraint, but hey... it's not their fault, it's the restaurants fault for providing so much food. Far be it from private business that in the face of huge profits, and potentially huge risks, they show a little caution and self control. They can always blame the government for their own stupidity.
AIG's poor risk management is completely their responsibility
Sure it is, and that doesn't change the fact that it was the Fed that made the scale of their mismanagement possible. The availability of an unlimited supply of credit removes the normal mechanism of signaling scarcity of capital. They were behaving like addicts, and the Fed was the pusher.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So when a drug dealer offers me some drugs, and I decide to take it and begin my path down addiction, I can blame the drug dealer and take no responsibility for my actions?
Or how about this, I get offered a gigantic home loan without assessing the risk. When my house gets foreclosed upon because I am unable to make the payments I can just blame the mortgage broker, right? They offered me the credit! They enabled me! It's not my fault!
If the private sector is indeed a bunch of helpless addicts who, given a large enough supply of cash, will gorge themselves in the name of greater profits, then they must have no self control and need to be regulated for their own sake and the sake of the economy.