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.

Comments

Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes down

[Joe_Dragon]

Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane

Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d

[JBMcB]

It's already illegal to smash a drone into a plane. I don't think deregulation will make it legal.

Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d

[ScentCone]

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.

Slimebags

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Slimebags

[w3woody]

Republican here, though my answer to you will be more thought out than your typical response.

First, it's important to separate between regulations and regulatory burdens. The former is something you have to comply with. The later is your cost to assure compliance.

A simple example of this is taxes. The former is the fact that you have to pay taxes. The later is you sweating over your tax returns every year, making sure you fill in all the right forms or talk to the right tax professional, and hoping you got it right so you don't get a mail audit. (Fun fact: for the first few years out of college I did my own taxes and used a mail audit to both learn what I did wrong, and as a sort of "return receipt" on my taxes.)

Most other civilized countries in the world assure regulatory compliance differently: they send you your completed taxes based on information provided to you by your bank, your employer, and other sources. Then you can either ignore it (which is interpreted as meaning your taxes were done correctly) or you can file a form indicating corrections.

The regulations are the same, more or less. But compliance is far easier.

In today's world there are plenty of regulations where compliance is a royal pain in the neck. The worst examples I can think of all revolve around starting your own freelance company: do you know what the legal requirements and licensing requirements are in your district or municipality regulating working at home? In some cases, just finding out what you need to do can be an all-day process, which is why some people working at home are actually breaking the law: they just don't know it.

Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d

[murdocj]

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.

Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d

[guises]

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.

The Liar in Chief

[JimSadler]

Trump can not stop lying. If he says he will deregulate anything there is zero reason to believe him.