Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Abides By GOP Request To Stop What It's Doing, Deletes Everything From Meeting Agenda (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the well-that-was-quick dept.

One day after republicans from the house and senate sent letters to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, urging him to avoid passing regulations before Donald Trump's inauguration as president, Wheeler appears to have complied with the request. The FCC today "announced the deletion of all items that were originally scheduled to be presented and voted on at tomorrow's meeting." Ars Technica reports: Before the change, the agenda included votes on price caps for "special access" business data services; Universal Service funding to expand mobile broadband networks; wireless roaming obligations; and requirements for audio description of TV programming for blind and visually impaired people. The only item not deleted from tomorrow's meeting is part of the "consent agenda," which means it is routine and wasn't going to be presented individually. Of the major items, the business data services proposal had received the most attention. These are dedicated wireline circuits provided by traditional phone companies like AT&T and Verizon; the services supply bandwidth for cellular data networks, indirectly affecting the price consumers pay for wireless service. The business data services are also used by banks and retailers to connect ATM machines and credit card readers, by government and corporate users to connect branch offices and data centers, and to support public safety operations and health care facilities. The now-deleted agenda item would have phased in price cap decreases of 11 percent over three years to account for "over a decade of efficiency gains" since the last price cap adjustment.

72 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Howard Stern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trump should appoint Howard Stern as the FCC Chairman.

    1. Re:Howard Stern by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know. Believe me, I know, right? It's getting to the point where you can't even say embarrassing and quasi-criminal things during a private on-air conversation. Sad!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Howard Stern by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why is that modded "funny"? Would be the most rational appointment T's made

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Howard Stern by rectalfeeding · · Score: 1

      Why is that modded "funny"? Would be the most rational appointment T's made

      The sad part is considering how powerful Stern is with his unreleased recordings of Trump. (that apparently no other Stern listener bothered to record and release to journalists during the campaign). Seriously, Stern has some mondo fucking leverage.

  2. Interesting problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Should you,
    do you do what you boss says (obama)
    or wait till your soon to be boss shows up. (trump)

    I think you always work for the current President.
    The next guy can wait till he shows up.
    Not a nice job, but it is the job you signed up to do.

    Not quite what happened.
    Perhaps there was some discussion with the incomming administration to head us this way?
    (A congress critter is not the same.)

    1. Re:Interesting problem by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it forces the next person to actively undo them, which can potentially be a news story with political backlash. Instead, the next person now doesn't have to do anything and they get their way, and no one will remember when it just doesn't happen.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re:Interesting problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Obama is not their boss. I mean, he appointed them, but he doesn't really have any ongoing power to use. Congress can defund their Koreig. Trump can reappoint them. Obama can just wave to them in the hall.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Interesting problem by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So what's historical? We have a lame duck session normally, but is it typical to demand the current government cease all work until the new government shows up? Did Obama demand that the Bush administration stop all activities? Did the Bush administration demand that the Clinton administration stop working? Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that? Now you know when the FCC does nothing that some loud mouth on the Republican side is going to claim that it's a waste of salary to be paying Tom Wheeler when he's got nothing on his agenda anymore.

    4. Re:Interesting problem by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No-win for the citizens too?

    5. Re:Interesting problem by theid0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this request was made in 2008: "At a time when serious questions are being raised about transition readiness, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider unrelated items, especially complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing." http://commerce.senate.gov/pub...

    6. Re:Interesting problem by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that?

      The Republicans certainly believed that when it came to approving judgeship appointments . . . .

    7. Re:Interesting problem by capebretonsux · · Score: 1

      It's already happened, Trump won...

      Time to make lemonade from the lemons for the next 4 years....

    8. Re:Interesting problem by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it does, at least for these items; they wouldn't be able to get through negotiations to even start implementing them before the inauguration. If negotiations aren't finished, Trump can just drop it quietly instead of actively doing anything.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  3. I'm suspicious by Notabadguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm suspicious of every article I see posted by BeauHD these days regardless of content, almost to the point of avoiding reading anything he posts - simply because of his tailored anti-Trump agenda, including his legendary twitter account posts that would have him twitter banned for hate speech if twitter uniformly applied their anti-hate rhetoric across political lines.

    I only posted this because I just realized that I've been avoiding a good chunk of slashdot to avoid this garbage.

    And now I'm sad.

    1. Re:I'm suspicious by BeauHD · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, I do have personal views just like you and everyone else on Slashdot but I don't let them influence the content posted to Slashdot's front page. With that said, I do encourage you to fact check the stories we post and the stories you read elsewhere on the web. :)

    2. Re:I'm suspicious by Bodhammer · · Score: 1
      BTW - The FCC under Bush did exactly the same thing at the request of the incoming Obama administration. Time to take a deep breath snowflakes!

      As Rep. Henry Waxman and Senator Jay Rockefeller noted during the 2008 Presidential transition, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing," Upton and Walden wrote. "We strongly urge you to concentrate the Commission's attention and resources only on matters that require action under the law and efforts to foster the success of the broadcast incentive auction."

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:I'm suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BTW - The FCC under Bush did exactly the same thing at the request of the incoming Obama administration. Time to take a deep breath snowflakes!

      As Rep. Henry Waxman and Senator Jay Rockefeller noted during the 2008 Presidential transition, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing," Upton and Walden wrote. "We strongly urge you to concentrate the Commission's attention and resources only on matters that require action under the law and efforts to foster the success of the broadcast incentive auction."

      No, they didn't, AAMOF. What they asked in their letter dated December 12, 2008 follows:

      "The most important challenge for the Commission over the next nine weeks is to ensure the smoothest possible transition to digital television (DTV). At a time when serious questions are being raised about transition readiness, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider unrelated items, especially complex and controversial itqns that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing. V/e strongly urge you to concentrate the Commission's attention and resources only on matters that require action under the law and efforts to smooth the transition to digital television."

      The current letter is obstructionist, the cited letter informs priorities, snowflake.

    4. Re: I'm suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't even begin to fathom the level of ignorance and sheer stupidity that prompts a comment like this.

      Yes, encouraging people to educate themselves and research the validity of the news stories they read is a big ploy. The Democrats are out to get you by telling you to do your research.

      Go ahead and revel in your idiocy. 60+ years worth of social progress is dangerously close to obliteration thanks to those who decided that having a female president is worse than a racist, xenophobic, egomaniac.
      Congrats on contributing to what will be one of the ugliest stains in this nations history.

    5. Re: I'm suspicious by another_twilight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By framing Trump's win as being the result of sexism you fail to acknowledge that many people chose not to vote for Clinton for various flaws, completely unrelated to her gender. Without some convincing proof otherwise, I'd assume that the number of people who voted for Trump _because_ Clinton was female is vanishingly small. The number for whom it was a consideration may be higher, but is still dwarfed by the number of people who rejected Clinton for her ties with banks and big business, 'pay for play' and accusations of corruption, scandals relating to mishandling of classified material, feeling that the Democrat's no longer represented the interests of those who once voted for them and/or any of dozens of other reasons that came up during the campaign.

      The degree to which any of those has merit can be debated. What can not is that these had a marked impact on various groups of voters that may previously have voted for a Democrat candidate.

    6. Re:I'm suspicious by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what's wrong with NPR? They're the most balanced and fair media outlet I've seen in the last decade. They present views and stories from across the spectrum. Liberals complain that it's too conservative, conservatives complain that it's too liberal, so it feels just right to me.

      Stop picking sides like this is just a dumb ball game! Start using your brain to decide how you feel about the issues instead of letting others tell you how to think. Read the news from all segments instead of just the ones that agree with you. Once you start calling people "libtards" then you sound like a drunken fan in the bleachers.

      Late night TV shows go and talk to the people on the streets and they're clueless. Ask them who they are voting for and it's "um, duh, Hillary because she's a woman?" or "um, duh, Trump because he's going to make things great?" They vote for their candidate because that's the team they always root for and not because they have the slightly clue what their candidate's policy platform is. They probably think that all of politics can be boiled down to left vs right, or liberal vs conservative, and that chemistry is earth, air, fire, and water.

      If you think the US is a backwater then you're really out of touch. I think America is already great and can be made greater. I see no evidence in history that the US was greater in the past than it is today and that it needs to be made great "again". We are doing better today than in the any time in the past. We continue to make forward progress in small pieces. This does not mean that everyone is personally happy and fulfilled though, we continue to have problems that need fixing. But they won't be fixed by going back in time.

    7. Re: I'm suspicious by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The GP is an idiot. The DNC decided that come hell or high water, they were going to have Hillary elected. What's likely true and sad is they could have picked virtually anyone else, even a moderate Republican like Kasich or even Rubio, and had a cake walk into a win. Even with Hillary's baggage, it took the Republicans and Comey combined to throw the election. Yes, throw it, just look at the huge shift in the polls 11 days prior to the election. And she still won the popular vote in spite of that.

      My hope is that we do unify, at least the moderate portions of the Republican congress, those small parts that are left, with the Democrats, and at least check Trump's actions. Because come Jan 20 (wait, would that be the 28th?) the direction of this country is going to be somewhat chaotic.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:I'm suspicious by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish it were just late night TV shows cherry picking idiots for comedic value. In reality, I have several friends who voted for very similar reasons. One lady voted for Trump because she thought it would be funny. One guy said he wanted his freedom back. I asked him, "what specific freedom do you want back, and how was it taken from you?" The answer was a long time coming and basically boiled down to the right not to have health insurance, but still be taken care of if he ended up in the hospital. Ironically, not a right enshrined in the constitution.

      What about the other rights?

      • Guns? He owns plenty, in fact he's a licensed gun dealer and Obama has been great for business. He did think that Hillary would try to take his guns.
      • Freedom of the press? Interestingly, he seems to think they have too much freedom.
      • Right against unreasonable search and seizure? Well if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
      • Right to peaceably assemble? He fuckin' hates all those liberal protesters. (but the aryan brotherhood is a-ok)
      • Freedom of religion? Didn't feel like he should be forced to recognize the validity of gay marriage. I asked how exactly other people getting married affects his ability to practice his own religion.
      • Due process? Nope, Hillary's guilty as sin and should go to prison, or worse. (Ironically, I pointed out that this freedom actually has been infringed by the Obama administration. But he said fuck that guy in Yemen, and we should drone strike 'em all!)
      • Cruel and unusual punishment? Not really a right that has been taken.

      So I tried a different tack. Something we could agree on: trying to improve the accountability of Washington. Of course my friend is a firm believer in "drain the swamp." So I asked him if he voted for his incumbent representative. "Of course," he said, "we just need to drain the other half of the swamp!"

      Then he said something about Trump being a business man who will bring back jobs. I would have asked what specific mechanism Trump has proposed to force companies to employ Americans, but I was getting bored.

    9. Re: I'm suspicious by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).

      There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed to be less about which was the better candidate, and who was the least-worst.

      However, the original statement that I object to is that the people who voted for Trump and against Clinton did so because she was a woman. No doubt some did. The majority who voted against her did so because the value they attach to certain things is a little different to the same values you place on those same things. Maybe that's the result of the monkey-brain cutting members of the tribe some slack, and forgiving in our 'friends' the flaws we'll abhor in those outside the tribe. Maybe it's just that Person A has to reluctantly accept a lying, corrupt, narcissist who barely represents their views, because the other party is also a lying, corrupt narcissist but is even further from representing their views.

      Just as with Brexit, there's a disjoint in analysis that is missing a significant disaffection in the voting public. We're seeing similar things, here, in voting behaviour although it's more diffuse as a result of our preferential voting and different party dynamic.

      If you want to understand what is going on, to actually understand what is driving a large enough portion of the population that it's distorting polls then you need to stop with the mischaracterisation and easy name-calling.

      Some Trump voters might well be sexist. That may even have influenced their voting choice. But far, far more voted that way for reasons the GP glosses over with a handwave and implied sexism.

  4. Seems they got a hold of by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...Hillary's cloth

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. Tomorrow's FCC Agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1.) Pre-approval of the merger of any and all cable television/broadband companies immediately with tax breaks based on the size and speed of the mergers

    2.) MPAA/RIAA given keys to lockout any website, URL, or IP address that is deemed to by violating copyright

    3.) Walt Disney given permanent copyright status in perpetuity

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Re:Tomorrow's FCC Agenda by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      1) Trump has at least come out against the AT&T / Time Warner merger, though like anything else who knows what his actual opinion on the matter is or what he'll really do when it comes down to it.

      2) Trump and Republicans in general probably aren't overly friendly to the entertainment industry. Then again they might try to do it because they believe its somehow to their benefit, but Trump was also against TPP (see point one) so assuming he says anything remotely related to how he actually feels, supporting them seems unlikely.

      3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?

    2. Re:Tomorrow's FCC Agenda by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?

      They do, but it requires they write checks to representatives and senators every decade or two to extend it again. If Disney could get rid of that pesky "limited" word in Article 1, Section 8, they could forego the cost of pretending it isn't de-facto unlimited copyright.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:Tomorrow's FCC Agenda by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If one were to take a stance that something such as a film has so many people involved that it can't really belong or be owned by any one of them as well as a belief that copyrights extend to corporate persons, then you could easily argue that copyright is perpetual. A corporate person only dies if they cease to exist as a going concern or otherwise dissolve their corporate charter and liquidate. If you assign the authorship of a work to a corporation, it never expires so long as the corporation exists in some capacity. Even should the original company be in such a perilous position, another corporation could buy them and continue their corporate existence.

      I have no legal expertise in this area, so perhaps there's some case law that indicates this is not possible, but the argument is reasonable if you accept that a corporation has some legal rights extended to a person and that a corporation can claim authorship of works subject to copyright laws. The second part is clearly true as there's no end to DMCA takedown requests that have been sent by corporate entities. Tendency to reject this argument likely stems from what little spirit of the law remains, unless there is some existing case law to allow a rejection of that line of argument.

    4. Re:Tomorrow's FCC Agenda by Agripa · · Score: 1

      3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?

      They do, but it requires they write checks to representatives and senators every decade or two to extend it again. If Disney could get rid of that pesky "limited" word in Article 1, Section 8, they could forego the cost of pretending it isn't de-facto unlimited copyright.

      "Limited" is not a problem. The USSC ruled that as long as a finite duration is specified, then it meets the requirements for "limited".

  6. The government can't just shut down like this by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell is this? Yes the future FCC may be different from the current one, but we still have a current FCC. The government can't just shut down for two months after an election.

    This is the same logic they used to block the supreme court nomination, and is wrong for the same reason.

    1. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by ahabswhale · · Score: 5, Informative

      The republicans always get what they want. Just like they got to deny Obama his Supreme Court appointee even though he still had a year left in his presidency. Get used to it because it's only gonna get worse.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    2. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Where have you been for the last 35 years? The government shuts down every time there's some budget squabble between Congress and the president.

    3. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by guises · · Score: 1

      There's only been one proper government shut down in the last twenty years. I was using the term figuratively here as the FCC isn't technically shutting down, it just isn't doing its job. This isn't typical.

    4. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Just like they got to deny Obama his Supreme Court appointee even though he still had a year left in his presidency.

      Congress gets to set the number of justices on the court.

      The Senate have the power to deny the president's appointees for all 4 years if they wanted; it's one of the legislative checks on the
      executive, that the president can only make selections that the Senate will consent to.

      Obama could have gotten sneaky though and made an appointment when the Senate was in recess..... then the appointee to the court would be valid temporarily and immediately take office, until the end of the next session (Or permanent, if the Senate turned back and decided to vote to consent).

    5. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by guises · · Score: 1

      The senate refused to recess in order to block a recess appointment, as I recall.

    6. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by ahabswhale · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right that the constitution doesn't dictate the number of justices but the Judiciary Act of 1969 does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Consequently, it's not optional to have eight except for temporary purposes (like retiring judge). Again, it doesn't matter because the republicans will do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    7. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Where was racism mentioned in that post? You brought that up out of left field. Or maybe right field? Definitely not center field.

    8. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by coinreturn · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least they've set a precedent now, so if any judges die/retire after Jan 2020... they're gonna have a tough time arguing that one.

      No they won't. Have you ever paid attention to the Republican party? For example, they love deficits when they are in power and hate them when Dems are in power.

    9. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      If negotiations are likely to take longer than the period until inauguration, it does sort of make sense to delay them. No point in starting them if you expect your priorities to change halfway through. Obama asked for some of the same things (to a lesser degree) when he took over.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    10. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      The republicans always get what they want

      The vast majority of them didn't want Trump as the nominee, so I don't think that's true.

    11. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Consequently, it's not optional to have eight except for temporary purposes (like retiring judge)

      That's a false "consequently". The Judiciary act of 1969 is not binding on congress.
      Also, for the same reason the "Line item veto" law was found unconstitutional ---- Congress is not capable of passing laws which impose restrictions or regulations on future acts of congress, not without approval of a constitutional amendment.

      So while the Judiciary Act of 1969 calls for X justices; the Senate has the legal authority to refuse to allow portions of the act to be fully implemented which require their consent.

      By the same token that Obamacare although a law, could have been effectively prevented from coming to affect just by failing to pass laws to provide necessary funding.

      By the same token, the Senate can refuse to approve the appointment of necessary justices for the full implementation of such and such law.

    12. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress since they're the only relevant party (other than the President). Consequently, what would be the point of doing that if it has no value whatsoever (which is what you're arguing)?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    13. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress since they're the only relevant party (other than the President). Consequently, what would be the point of doing that if it has no value whatsoever (which is what you're arguing)?

      Publicity?

      Congress cannot pass a law that they cannot ignore.

    14. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress

      NOPE. See U.S. v. Winstar Corp. and Justice David Souter quoted

      The legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it's [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament.

      Congress is not beholden to any decision made by a past congress.

      That would be legislative entrenchment. The courts have ruled that congress cannot bind a future congress by
      forcing them to carry on policies of their choosing, not even by passing a law; that would be privileging earlier lawmakers over later ones,
      and no such privilege is allowed by the constitution.

      Only something in the Constitution can limit congress or force them to do anything, not previous acts of congress.

    15. Re:The government can't just shut down like this by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, that isn't true. They fund stuff off the books so it doesn't look like they are running a large deficit.

      That, too. But when Bush the Stupid got in office, they pushed through huge tax cuts under the claim that deficits didn't matter. As soon as Obama got in, they started screaming about deficits (that they created by the huge tax cuts).

  7. Well... by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FCC could pass regulations that will be invalidated upon Trump's inauguration, or they could avoid wasting everyone's time and do this. They took the cost-cutting choice.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Well... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Invaliding an FCC regulation would require legislative action by the congress, specifying what to chance, since the regulatory authority over these matters has been vested by congress with the FCC.

      It's not like Trump would have the power to take office and unilaterally void all the FCC rules without any debate in the house.

    2. Re:Well... by flink · · Score: 1

      The FCC could pass regulations that will be invalidated upon Trump's inauguration, or they could avoid wasting everyone's time and do this. They took the cost-cutting choice.

      The FCC is an independent agency. The president gets to appoint commissioners, designate the chairman, and suggest policy, but he does not have the authority to set the agenda or give orders. Further only 3 of the 5 commissioners may be of the same party as the president. Trump will get to appoint two new commissioners in 2017 as their terms are expiring, so the new board will almost certainly got from majority (D) to (R).

      There's a big difference between the new administration overturning something the previous one had set in motion versus the outgoing administration silently dropping it. In the former case, the press might ask questions about why the policy shift occurred, in the latter, the issue might disappear without a trace.

    3. Re:Well... by rectalfeeding · · Score: 1

      The FCC could pass regulations that will be invalidated upon Trump's inauguration, or they could avoid wasting everyone's time and do this. They took the cost-cutting choice.

      Getting intelligent and important ideas on the public record, even if 'invalidated' by Trump, is not at all necessarily a "waste of everyone's time". But apparently they didn't evaluate their ideas that highly.

    4. Re:Well... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt they are just trying to save money. They know that once passed it will be harder and more controversial to undo decisions already made.

      It's like Obamacare. As much as the Republicans hate it and would love to repeal every last word, in practice now it's here they will find it much more difficult to take away from people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The point is, they probably won't be able to pass it before Trump takes office. And the GOP will try to repeal Obamacare, but replace it with something else. That's always been Trump's goal. Obamacare does have flaws, significant ones in some cases, so a replacement may not be a bad thing.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  8. He's already in a mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Half of Trump's transition team has been fired. Chris Christie was fired because he was Governor when Trump's son-in-law's Jared's, father was prosecuted on fraud charges and didn't pardon the fraudster.

    Mike Rogers left after getting a briefing on the Trump Russian links from the CIA.

    Trump then assigned son-in-law, Jared and his children, to his transition team, but US code 5 USC 3110, Trump may not "appoint, employ, advance, or advocate for" relatives in "the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control".

    Nepotism is illegal. They're also not security cleared.

    Trump may be a sad joke, but Putin is not.

    1. Re:He's already in a mess by harperska · · Score: 2

      To be fair, he is not president until January 20 and the transition team is not a federal agency, so 5 USC 3110 doesn't apply in this case. If he were to try to appoint one of his trumplings to anything post-inauguration, though, then there would be a problem.

    2. Re:He's already in a mess by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 2

      Half of Trump's transition team has been fired. Chris Christie was fired because he was Governor when Trump's son-in-law's Jared's, father was prosecuted on fraud charges and didn't pardon the fraudster.

      No, Christie was the US District Attorney who prosecuted Charles Kushner in 2004. He didn't become governor until 2010.

    3. Re:He's already in a mess by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Trump hasn't been employed by the federal government yet. So technically he's not violating the code.

    4. Re:He's already in a mess by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      IE, it's legal for Trump's relatives to serve on his transition team, just not his cabinet.
      It would also be legal for them to serve as "advisers," I believe.

  9. Re:Once Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The title says everything was dropped. The summary lists one item that wasn't dropped and restricts what was cut to only vote-able items. The headline is clearly false, unless you redefine what 'everything' means.

  10. Re:WTF are you talking about? by rectalfeeding · · Score: 1

    What unreleased recordings? These Trump conversations...

    I believe I saw plenty of news that Stern refused requests to release his recordings of these public broadcasts. I saw no reports that anyone, anywhere, had any copies available for journalistic review (in the new context of a presidential campaign).

    If you or anyone can provide links to an archive of the audio that I and other journalists can analyze, then I will agree that there are no 'unreleased recordings'.

  11. We still want business to happen by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    We still want business to happen between the election, and the beginning of the new session. Now we're just paying the bureaucrats to sit around and nothing for two months.

  12. That's ridiculous by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I'm a Republican, but that's completely stupid.

    The FCC is part of the executive branch and last time I checked, Mr Obama is still very much president. Essentially, they just quit working because "some guys over there" said they should.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:That's ridiculous by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say he IS one, he merely acts as if he wishes he were one. Which is the point that I think people are making that use that language.

      Keeping in mind the commentary here (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/) that a simple count of exec orders is nearly meaningless, I think one could have a reasonable case that Mr Obama has issued more substantive exec orders in lieu of legislation than previous presidents.

      Some might assert "he had to, the GOP refused to work with him at all" - which is simply bullshit. A president faced with an oppositional congress HAS TO COMPROMISE HEAVILY to advance his agenda. Full stop. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. Mr Obama rarely was willing to compromise in any balanced way.

      Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that Mr Obama did a fair amount of legislation-by-exec-order, which will be why his legacy will be so easily dismantled by whomever feels like it, whether or not they have a cooperative congress...it just takes the stroke of a pen, just like it did to initiate it.

      --
      -Styopa
  13. Why do we even have an FCC? by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    You would think the ACLU would be all over getting rid of a federal communication commission. Sounds like a joke, something from the old Soviet Union. If they want to regulate the use of the electromagnetic spectrum and not things protected in the 1st amendment then they need a new name and a new mission.

    1. Re:Why do we even have an FCC? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this only shows your own ignorance.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  14. Can We Save Tom Wheeler? by danjump · · Score: 1

    Is there anything we can do as the public to keep the FCC going in the same direction? Preferably with Tom Wheeler still around? I was just telling my wife that the last few years of the FCC has been a rare example of excellently functioning government that benifits citizens. And now there's all this talk of Trump killing it. Are there seriously any public actions that could even possibly support Wheeler's FCC enough to not die?

    1. Re:Can We Save Tom Wheeler? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Are there seriously any public actions that could even possibly support Wheeler's FCC enough to not die?

      Sounds like he's already doing what he can do: putting his head down and praying for change in the future, but trying not to rock the boat now.

      I don't think it will work, but what do you suggest be done?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Who's president NOW? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I think every government agency should stop everything it's doing in the next four years, because in four years time, Trump will be replaced by another president.

    Current government decides what happens, this whole "lame duck" bullshit isn't legal in any way or supported by any constitution or amendment.

    FCC stopping plans now due to Trump not yet being in government is the same as failing to serve the current government.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  16. also the right to communicate provision by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I thought they were also going to talk about the right to communicate for Ham radio operators basically telling HOA's to go fuck themselves in regards to ham radio antennas. and how most HOA's try and ban them.

    Hams save your ass during disasters, The local government is utterly inept at communications during disasters. and in some states like Florida, it's nearly impossible to buy a home that is not in a HOA.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  17. People are missing what's going on by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    OK, a lot of people are missing what is going on here because they do not know the law. The FCC did this in response to a letter from members of both the House and the Senate. There is a law, passed when Bill Clinton was President (which Clinton signed) which states that if an Administrative Agency creates a new regulation Congress has so many months to pass a bill overturning that regulation (basically, the new Congress will be able to undo any regulation created since the beginning of 2016). If that bill gets into law (either signed by the President or Congress overturns his veto), that Agency cannot create another regulation in that area. I am unsure of the exact wording of that portion, so I do not know how closely something like that would tie the Agency's hands.

    Because of that law, if the FCC were to create a new regulation without the buy-in of the Trump Administration, it would likely be overturned by Congress. Which would limit their ability to create a new regulation with the Trump Administration's approval.

    One other point worth mentioning. The FCC's primary job is NOT creating new regulations. Its primary job is ENFORCING existing regulations. So, this is not a statement by the FCC that they are not going to do any work for the next few months.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  18. A Toast to the Dingo by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    As it appears that is days are numbered now, I propose a toast to the best damn Dingo we ever had. We're going to be spending four years wishing Wheeler was back.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  19. RIP Net Neutrality by dywolf · · Score: 1

    RIP Net Neutrality

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  20. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I believe I saw plenty of news that Stern refused requests to release his recordings of these public broadcasts.

    It is more complex than that. I won't get into the details about who is refusing to release them (that's a messy story and unclear). The recordings being talked about are the ones that didn't go on the air, including hot mike recordings that were never part of the show.

  21. Fake News by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    I've got a feeling that it's going to get harder to tell what's fake news for the next while. I thought that this was a joke at first. Earlier today there was an article on CNN about women who have babies from sexual attacks have to share custody of the child with the attacker. If the attacker doesn't get convicted with a serious enough crime (for example, convicted of sexual assault 3 instead of sexual assault 1) then they can sue for visitation rights. I didn't check it out but when you articles like this then it makes one think that the other could be true because the laws are so screwed up.