Slashdot Mirror
Wireless and Drone Execs Praised President Trump as He Pledged To Cut Down Regulations (recode.net)
U.S. President Donald Trump offered support for emerging technologies including unmanned aerial vehicles and next-generation wireless networks in a meeting on Thursday with the chiefs of AT&T and General Electric and other business leaders. From a report: For the likes of AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, the public audience with Trump offered an opportunity to continue nudging the U.S. government -- including in a scheduled, private session with the leader of the Federal Communications Commission earlier Thursday -- to cut back on restrictions that make it difficult for AT&T and other telecom giants to grow their footprint and deploy the new technologies, such as 5G wireless. Speaking with Recode later Thursday, Marcelo Claure, the chief executive of Sprint, said that he and others in his industry had emphasized to Trump that the government must help them deploy new tools like small cells -- essentially, mini cell towers that improve wireless connectivity. Trump, for his part, promised Thursday to cut down on "too many years of excessive government regulation" to enable innovators and investments to offer new cutting-edge tools in health care, science, medicine and communication. "We have had regulation that's been so bad, so out of line that it's really hurt our country," he said.
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
/. has a history of long comment threads complaining about drone regulation.
It's already illegal to smash a drone into a plane. I don't think deregulation will make it legal.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
Will the executives at companies which manufacturer weather balloons do hard time if someone mis-uses one of those, and it gets sucked into an engine causing a crash? You sure hope so, right? And of course you're definitely in favor of the executives at Ford, GM, BMW and others going to jail when a terrorist uses a car to mow down some people on a sidewalk, a drunk driver kills somebody. Because no manufacturer should escape prison if people criminally or negligently mis-use their products. And people who write software should definitely do time if a criminal uses their software to do something illegal, for sure.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
that was put in the hospital for several days due to a drone. It is sad to see Trump not want more restrictions on them. They are dangerous.
Depends on whether the drone makers or the airplane makers are willing to pay trump more.
Whenever I talk to a Republican who gets all frothy about regulations, I ask for specific examples. The fairly rare times I actually get specific answers, it quite often turns out the regulation is on the books because some slimebag company abused their freedom.
They are typically related to pollution, safety, misleading consumers, and/or anti-competitive behavior to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There are indeed some bad regulations (or in need of tuning), but most are there for a legitimate reason. They were NOT invented out of the blue by some power-hungry hippie socialist.
And some of the regulations were actually lobbied into place by big co's who want to keep smaller players out of the market. This is especially common on the state and local level. Look at Tesla's trouble in selling cars because some states require licensed physical dealerships. The Big 3 car co's got those in place to keep out custom and foreign car co's.
Table-ized A.I.
According to this overview of unmanned aircraft law, drone use is largely being regulated by the states. Aside from the FAA's widely anticipated and vetted operational rules, there really isn't much more that can be done at the Federal level. The FAA can add restrictions to operators. It cannot prevent states from putting on additional reasonable restrictions, which many have.
So I'm not exactly sure what Trump imagines he is going to do to "help" these companies.
But I'm sure he will. After all, it's not like he already has a reputation for making grandiose promises that he has no intention of keeping, or bullshitting about things he is laughably ignorant about. Nope. Never seen that happen.
Now where's the profit in that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
For corporate filth, the ideal world is a world where THEY are the governement, i.e. fascism.
At the same time, let's not pretend cars and similar vehicles aren't heavily regulated, from federal regulations on fuel efficiency and safety features to state inspections. DOT has a huge influence, and the government most definitely has gone after execs and companies, such as recalls and other legal issues, ask GM and VW. Regulation even goes further into licensing, registration/tags, many major roads, insurance coverage, etc.
Weather balloons, similarly, are supposed to be regulated wrt air traffic, like you are supposed to notify the nearby airport about their release, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
You need to come to grips with reality. Trump doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about me. He doesn't care about other people, other than (perhaps) his immediate family circle. He cares about money, power, and being worshiped. If he can make money by letting the drone makers occasionally take down a plane, he will.
Act like an adult and face the truth.
Literally something like 10 linear feet of regulations. It makes doing business as a telecom almost impossible.
But... guess who wrote all that regulation? AT&T.
Because absurd regulation is a way that deep-pocketed incumbents make sure they never get any competition.
If they legitimately want the regulation gone, it means they don't feel threatened by any startups, right now. Though actually, I think they're just lying. They pay lip service to wanting it gone, but if things start to move in that direction, they'll make a few discreet visits to their congresss-critters and make sure things quietly stop.
If AT&T objects to it, then you know it's good for consumers.
The president wants to deregulate Wall Street, deregulate coal, and deregulate every corporate activity in America. So now he wants to deregulate drones and we're supposed to be surprised?
...omphaloskepsis often...
for their customers.
the want regulations cut down so they can raise prices and establish de facto monopolies.
it's all about rent-seeking.
as for that dickhead Trump, when are the people who voted for him going to admit that maybe the billionaires he put in charge really don't have your best interests in mind ?
Absolute statements are never true
The regulations POTUS has been aiming at are regulations that hamper manufacturing, raise the cost of doing business in the US and thereby indirectly inhibiting the creation of new jobs. Compliance w/ regulations costs money, and companies are forced to set aside that cash, thereby hiring fewer people than what they could have hired.
It has nothing to do w/ laxing things like traffic rules, ATC regs and other laws that are meant for society to function more smoothly
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying. The question is: when people profit by lobbying to reduce safety regulations, should they be held liable when someone dies in an accident which those regulations existed to prevent?
The fact that these people manufacture the product is only relevant insofar as they profit from the removal of these regulations.
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying.
You are (deliberately) grossly dumbing-down the issue. Let's say I'm a car manufacturer and I lobby to reduce regulations on where we can source the fibers for the carpets I use in my products, or think that the government specifying the resolution on the back-up cameras I use isn't the right way for me to choose the technology I want to sell. So here I am lobbying for less regulation ... does that mean I should be in jail when someone driving one of my cars uses it as a weapon to hurt people? Or when someone with no sense runs into oncoming traffic because they're not at handling the complex task of driving a car in traffic? So if improve my profits by having more flexibility in how I source my carpet fibers, that should expose me to liability when someone mis-uses my product? You're connecting lobbying to allow a product to be more flexible with someone else's criminal mis-use of the product. It's nonsense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Trump can not stop lying. If he says he will deregulate anything there is zero reason to believe him.
The issue at hand is: you misrepresented what the story and parent were saying. I don't think that's dumbing it down, that's the entire issue.
You're taking an action, arguing for reducing limitations on using unsafe carpet fibers, and associating it with an unrelated other action, deliberately killing someone with a car. And then saying, "Look! These two things are unrelated!"
But this is not the point that the parent was making. The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots, are removed so that drone manufacturers can sell more drones, and then a plane crashes after a drone collision because a pilot can't see a drone, then maybe that lobbyist or the company who hired that lobbyist should have some culpability.
To go with your car analogy: I don't know about any existing regulations regarding carpet fibers in cars, but if there were any I'd imagine they'd have to do with the length of the carpet. I.e.: carpets in cars must be short. So let's say that some shag rug manufacturer lobbies to get this regulation removed, so they can sell really deep shag carpeting for cars, and then someone gets killed because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal. Specifically because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal, not because the person driving the car decides to use the car as a weapon - that would be an unrelated issue.
If that were the case, then you would have a situation similar to what the parent is talking about.
Well color me shocked, the billionaire boys club is cheering that no one will be limiting their waste disposal, compliance with truth in advertising or product safety
In other news, water is wet.
Why did you? Oh wait, it's because you don't want to admit that, yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions
That's a fine strawman collection you're building there. Does it feel good to fight them when nobody else is looking?
We're not talking about the manufacturer's actions. We're talking about the users of the products and THEIR actions. For example, somebody operating a drone. That person is responsible for their own actions. If the manufacturer is liable when the operator flies it into the groom's face while making a wedding video (or into the intake on a commercial aircraft when flying where they're not allowed to operate), that's not the manufacturer's fault. How are you not clear on this? Just because manufacturers have been successfully sued for things THEY did has nothing, whatsoever, to do with placing nonsensical regulatory burdens on those manufacturers and then (per the person we're responding to, here) suggesting that if the manufacturer pushes back against those absurd regulations that they're suddenly liable for something completely unrelated when a user of their product breaks the law. How, again, are you not able to process this?
No surprise you don't want to even mention the most extensive harm from automobiles, though, none at all.
You mean, an eeeevil unamed harm that you are too childishly frightened to mention yourself, because ... it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand? Carry on, though. It's fun to watch you get yourself all confused and then pretend it's somebody else's fault. I suspect this is how you handle most of your interaction with the rest of the world. Please do us all a favor and don't. Interact with the rest of the world, that is. Especially by voting. Since you seem to like the idea of assigning legal liability via childish non sequitors.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots,
There are no regulations that exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
... Did you read the article? You should read the article.
... Did you read the article? You should read the article.
I don't need to read the article, I know the regulations. No such regulations exist.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying? Without even bothering to read it? That seems awfully negligent. But, whatever. This story is more than a day old now, so no one is ever going to read this.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying?
If you read what I write and not try to make it up on your own, you'll save everyone a lot of time. I responded to the specific statement:
There are no such "regulations which exist". Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots." The only regulation is that the person flying the drone or the observer must have VLOS on what they are flying. Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Compare that to manned aircraft regulations that do mandate certain anti-collision and other lighting systems for certain classes and types of aircraft. But even those do not ensure anything other than that the lights are there. Visibility is not a defined outcome of those regulations.
That seems awfully negligent.
Sue me. If you can. The truth is an absolute defense.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots."
Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Maybe you don't. I don't care.
I talked about what the parent and the article were saying, specifically that there are some regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
There are no such regulations.
You come along and say that those regulations don't exist.
They don't. Can you provide a reference to one?
Ergo: the article which claimed that they exist, which you didn't bother to read, is lying.
No, you are lying. I don't care what the article said.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
It doesn't matter if those two statements, which I made, are equivalent. What matters is if there are regulations that "exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots". There are not.
I don't care.
You don't care that you are wrong. I got it.