Almost All of FCC's New Advisory Panel Works For Telecoms (thedailybeast.com)

New submitter simkel writes: When the Federal Communications Commission went looking this year for experts to sit on an advisory committee regarding deployment of high-speed internet, Gary Carter thought he would be a logical choice. Carter works for the city of Santa Monica, California, where he oversees City Net, one of the oldest municipal-run networks in the nation. The network sells high-speed internet to local businesses, and uses the revenue in part to connect low-income neighborhoods. That experience seemed to be a good match for the proposed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai created this year. One of the panel's stated goals is to streamline city and state rules that might accelerate installation of high-speed internet. But one of the unstated goals, members say, is to make it easier for companies to build networks for the next generation wireless technology, called 5G. The advanced network, which promises faster speeds, will require that millions of small cells and towers be erected nationwide on city- and state-owned public property. The assignment seemed to call out for participation from city officials like Carter, since municipal officials approve where and what equipment telecommunications companies can place on public rights of way, poles and buildings. But the FCC didn't choose Carter -- or almost any of the other city or state government officials who applied. Sixty-four city and state officials were nominated for the panel, but the agency initially chose only two: Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose, California, and Kelleigh Cole from the Utah Governor's Office, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. Pai later appointed another city official, Andy Huckaba, a member of the Lenexa, Kansas, city council. Instead the FCC loaded the 30-member panel with corporate executives, trade groups and free-market scholars. More than three out of four seats on the BDAC are filled by business-friendly representatives from the biggest wireless and cable companies such as AT&T, Comcast, Sprint, and TDS Telecom. Crown Castle International Corp., the nation's largest wireless infrastructure company, and Southern, the nation's second-largest utility firm, have representatives on the panel.

Comments

Regulatory Capture

[bravecanadian]

Another victory for capitalism! wooooo!

Re: Regulatory Capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah. See they will eliminate all those needless combersome regukations and pass the vost savings onto to consumer.

Ahahahaha....i crack myself up! I should do standup

Re:Regulatory Capture

[alvinrod]

This would seem to be an argument for why it's a bad idea to create a bureaucracy that gets to make rules without being answerable to the public. Once you create a small entity with this much power, of course it's going to become a target for corruption.

Even just requiring Congressional approval for any FCC policy recommendations would go a long way towards solving the problem. I can at least write my Congress critter and vote them out if I don't like their performance. There's nothing I can do to hold the FCC accountable.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[Rockoon]

Us older folks told you not to trust the FCC. We told you that "Net Neutrality" as-a-law was written by the telecoms.

You folks didnt listen. You wanted Big Government to solve your Local Problems. Hows that going now?

The guy leading the FCC now is only beholden to cellular, which is why the FCCs stand now is that only Cellular should be built-out with public money, and not Cable or even Satellite.

Don't trust anything the federal government does, and especially don't trust anything the FCC does. Its never in your best interests. It never was.

We as a people knew that once. The young Big Government folks dont seem to have a healthy distrust of the Federal government. Instead they have an unhealthy distrust of choices.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[ShanghaiBill]

We told you that "Net Neutrality" as-a-law was written by the telecoms.

Bullcrap. The telcoms have always opposed NN, and have worked hard and spent a lot of money to get it repealed.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Die in a fire gramps

Re:Regulatory Capture

[Captain Splendid]

Once you create a small entity with this much power, of course it's going to become a target for corruption.

This argument doesn't track at all, else Congress' composition would look a lot different.

There's nothing I can do to hold the FCC accountable.

Sure there is. The President appoints, and the Senate confirms. Call those idiots up, and don't forget to vote.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[DewDude]

They tried a voluntary Neutrality agreement. Big Telcoms got with Wheeler and supposedly came to agreements.

Then they sued him for trying to actually enforce them!

The Telcoms HAD their chance to write the NN...and they still didn't want what they came up with. So trying to pass off the telecoms came up with it from the start would be fine...if it wasn't for the big god-damn hole of how much they sued to not get them enacted.

Corporations that operate in multiple states really isn't a "local problem". We used to have great solutions 20 years ago for this type of stuff; one guy was giving shit service, so we'd switch to someone who wasn't giving shit service. The underlying monopoly that let us do this...the phone company...was already bound by neutrality laws. If they weren't, they could have done stuff like block me from dialing any ISP they didn't get extra money from...or they didn't own. That was competition...everyone was fighting for your dollars for dialup.

That doesn't exist anymore. I have basically one option for broadband service. One. The idea of anyone being able to compete for my business is out the window. Wireless technology will not fully replace wireline service where I live....and only the big telcom...who took Title II money for building part of it's network...is the only one that can give me suitable services. So why the fuck should I be expected to be at the mercy of my sole option?

But that's exactly what you old guys pushing smaller government and deregulation have basically forced upon me. When NN dies....my only reliable source of communication will be with a company who has ZERO interest in what I want...and just wants to make sure they push only the content they agree with...or getting money.

And don't even get me started about local government. Franchise agreements are a god-damn joke and half the problem with trying to build new infrastructre lies in bullshit back-room agreements that says "no-no...we have a guy that does all that, gtfo".

So if government wants to regulate things to be fair for the consumer; that's rubbish. But if they want to stifle competition and further boost a large corporation that your old-ass probably owns stock in...that's just great. "That's America" they tell me.

What the fuck is free about a market that's dominated with monopolies? How the fuck can media be free when three corporations basically own everything we're told. How the fuck can we be free if service providers are allowed to pick and choose.

Seriously you old asshole...fucking tell me. Explain to me how being under control of corporations who only seek to extract as much profit from us without even providing anything in the first place is better than common sense regulation that says "fucking give people what they pay for and deal with your competition in other ways than buying them out".

Re:Regulatory Capture

[jriding]

Drain that swamp! MAGA! /s

Re:Regulatory Capture

[Rockoon]

They tried a voluntary Neutrality agreement. Big Telcoms got with Wheeler and supposedly came to agreements.

Because they didnt want congress to be involved. It would require a ton of lobbying money to control that.

Then they sued him for trying to actually enforce them!

Because congress backed off. The telecoms decided the rules via the FCC, not congress, and now they want to change the rules, with congress busy trying to start World War 3, they dont even have to pretend.

They learned it by watching Hollywood convince congress to let them self-regulate via an association that is very powerful today.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[Jason Levine]

The telecoms have been for a "Network Neutrality" law passed by Congress. The catch was that the law was written by the telecoms and would be so full of loopholes that it would be useless. This way, the telecoms could claim to be observing Net Neutrality, Congress could say they voted for Net Neutrality, and people who didn't know better would think Net Neutrality won. It's like when they get legislators to count a town as "wired for high speed Internet" when one house in the town is wired. Then, they just wire the bare minimum (perhaps a rich section of town), call the job done, and pocket the rest of the funds they were given to wire the town.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[ShanghaiBill]

The catch was that the law was written by the telecoms

Bullcrap. The telecoms never wrote any network neutrality law. Why would they? They are getting everything they want by packing the FCC with cronies.

Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a citation.

Re:Regulatory Capture

[whit3]

Us older folks told you not to trust the FCC. We told you that "Net Neutrality" as-a-law was written by the telecoms.... Don't trust anything the federal government does, and especially don't trust anything the FCC does. Its never in your best interests. It never was.

History shows us otherwise. Mail used to be private enterprise but that encouraged and allowed a lot of problems.. Federal postal service was the solution.

Ben Franklin writes in his autobiography

Bradford; who was rich and easy, did a little printing ... he kept the post-office... tho' I did indeed receive and send papers by the post, yet the publick opinion was otherwise, for what I did send was by bribing the riders, who took them privately, Bradford being unkind enough to forbid it, which occasion'd some resentment on my part

The rest of the story is: Ben Franklin became our country's first postmaster, instituted postal regulations prohibiting tampering, snooping, and interference,.

Our Constitution puts post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways firmly under Federal control. That was because we knew better than to trust all the channels of telecommunication to local enterprises. I, for one, STILL know better, but our FCC does not. The US postal service has been a brilliant success in binding together all parts of our nation, and cooperates readily with similar common carriers in other countries.

Ben Franklin had to work hard to get past the issues of non-neutrality of mail delivery, and all we have to do is to have an FCC that takes modern telecommunication concerns seriously. We pay those bozos a salary, and ought not to accept misfeasance.

I got karma to burn

[rsilvergun]

so I'll vent a little here. We all knew this was coming when the Donald got elected. He's made no secret of his disdain for bureaucrats and his love of business people. Thing is, I'll take a bureaucrat over a businessman in government any day. I _want_ the people running my country to be free from industry ties. And how the hell else do you accomplish that except by having career civil servants? Folks need to understand a) elections have consequences and b) Civil Servant == bureaucrat.

Re:I got karma to burn

[parallel_prankster]

Trump was elected by folks who have no idea of how government runs. They were scared of extinction of their way of life, their religious beliefs and they compromised other things for the preservation of their choices. The entire business over bureaucracy stuff was just fluffy excuses.

Re:I got karma to burn

[El Cubano]

In my mind, the real lesson to draw from this is that every time you think to yourself "the government should [fill-in-the-blank]," you need to stop right there and perform a thought experiment. The procedure is:

1. Imagine that you got your way and that all the power you wish to grant to the government on the issue at hand gets granted
2. Now, imagine that after the power is firmly entrenched that those who hold opposing views to yours are put in power (win the election, get appointed, etc.)
3. Now, imagine that those who have an opposing view to yours twist and use the power granted to them (legally) in the most damaging way possible
4. Now, imagine that both those who have views congruent with yours and opposed to yours will abuse the law and the power that they have been granted
5. Now, imagine yourself saying, "maybe the government shouldn't..."

I am not trying to say that we should strive for anarchy, rather that we should very carefully consider the sorts of things that we rope the government into at the federal, state, and local level. Matters in which the government gets involved frequently turn out differently than we expect.

Re:I got karma to burn

[G00F]

No, Trump was elected because his opponent was Hilary Clinton.

Tump got the Republican nomination because Reps where sick of Reps Politicians.

Hilary would have lost to almost any Republican except Bush. IMO it's to bad McCain or Romney didn't run this time as it could have been them.

Re:I got karma to burn

[whoever57]

And then go on to think:
Is it better for me that a government bureaucrat with some minimal accountability controls something, or that a multi-billionaire, who is only interested in himself (and perhaps his family) controls something?

Do you think that the policies that the Koch Brothers and the Mercers push are intended to benefit anyone except the ultra-wealthy?

Re:I got karma to burn

[PoopJuggler]

Trump was elected because stupid people cast ballots for him, period. How do I know they're stupid? Because the only reasons you would vote for him are A.) Because you thought he would make a good president, which makes you gullible and stupid or B.) Because he's not Hillary, which also makes you stupid because you would put a sociopathic POS like Trump into the most powerful position in the world just to spite Hillary... A write-in of "Bugs Bunny" would have been better and smarter than a vote for Trump.

Re:I got karma to burn

[whoever57]

.... RNC talking points ....

Perhaps you could start by having an original thought and not parrot Republican talking points.

Re:I got karma to burn

[Darinbob]

Everyone says they want a business guy in office. But Trump isn't really what they meant, he's a real estate wheeler and dealer and has a privately owned business staffed by friends and family. The voters probably had in mind someone like a CEO of a large fortune 500 company.

But even then, being a successful CEO at a major successful company does not mean that person knows how to run a country. The skill sets do no overlap very much, other than how to manage a large organization (hire a chief of stuff and that job's done). The goals of a company are vastly different from the goals of a country. A business wants to make a profit, it's budget is about minimizing expenses, maximizing profits, and so forth. A country wants ot provide security and quality of life to its residents; there should be no profit making there.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have hired homeless people instead?

Apparently, there are only two kinds of people in the world, telecom executives and homeless people.

Re:So?

[Kohath]

Medical Doctors then? I'm sure they know a lot about 5G communications.

What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it make more sense to have a regulatory panel filled with radio hobbyists or people knowledgeable about how the industry actually runs? As much as I'd like to say hobbyists or enthusiasts, those aren't the people who drive where the various industries under the FCC umbrella are likely to go. As for checks, the agency has congressional oversight, so there are always ways to influence that way. Comment periods and working groups are filled by people who work directly for and indirectly with the industry, so these people on the board are not necessarily the ones coming up with the policies. The FCC covers a very wide area, so board members are not experts in each, so they delegate authority and take cues that way. Now for conflicts of interest, I'd leave that up to the FBI to keep things interesting as that would be racketeering.

Fox...

[midifarm]

Hen house.... Insert angry emoji

"free-market scholars"

[Tailhook]

"free-market scholars".... yeah. whatever.

I believe a liberated market could easily solve our availablity/cost/privacy/etc. issues easily and quickly. I suspect the "free-market scholars" mentioned here are actually the usual beltway telecom shills that wont be advocating any such liberalization. On the other hand people don't hesitate to blame the failures and inadequacies of this highly regulated and monopoly dominated system to "capitalism," so I suppose the shills are free to call themselves whatever they want, since we're just making stuff up.

(And no, I'm not interested in your view of the meaning of the word, or whatever cherry picked authority you'll cite. So don't bother.)

Re:Wrong

[bravecanadian]

Capitalism always trends inevitably towards monopoly. Corporatism just means we're half-way there. Still some consolidating and acquisitions to finish up..

Re:So?

[Kohath]

Then the headline would be about how the communications scientists on the board worked for, or with, or received grants from communications companies. Or they collaborated on projects with those who did.

A good old analogy

[Miser]

Looks like the fox is guarding the hen house.....

How can that NOT be a conflict of interest?

People wonder why I just don't give a shit about politics and stuff like this anymore.

"Just run for office!!" "Vote them out!!"

Yeah right. Do you realize how LONG it would take in a political career to effect REAL change? ... and the odds of not be corrupted by money along the way?

Re:you are 100% ignorant of reality

[erapert]

Who has a bigger stick than the US Federal Government?

Re:Wrong

[alvinrod]

Capitalism just means that wealth is privately owned or not controlled by the government. There have been some examples of countries that were capitalist, but lacked a free market (or simply had highly controlled markets) and it's really a strong market-based economy that leads to greater prosperity. It's just also the case that it's hard to have a market economy without some degree of capitalism. I suppose you could have some kind of syndicalist system that still allows for a free market, but no such systems have emerged organically on a large scale so it's hard to say how it would work out in practice.

I'd actually take Trump over Romney

[rsilvergun]

it's all the same Goldman Sach's people running the show and we'd still be gearing up for war with North Korea. The difference is Romney would have gotten the Obamacare repeal through and we'd all be losing pre-existing coverage. Trump is like any other Republican but not as good at it. Lots and lots of cronyism, Low taxes, no regulation/EPA and no social programs. Romney's the same but he's better at it. As for McCain, he's got about a year left in him so a vote for him was really a vote for his VP. And that probably woulda still been Pence.

You don't hand government power

[rsilvergun]

you hand it tasks. Then you use Democracy to make sure those tasks don't turn into power. Now, here's another thought experiement:

Every time you think to yourself "the government should [fill-in-the-blank],"

then say "maybe they government shouldnt..."

Now remind yourself of the power vacuum you just created and how the mega corporations just rushed in to fill it. Stop to realized you're going to have a government whether you like it or not, and that the only real question is are you going to take part in it...

Re:You don't hand government power

[El Cubano]

You don't hand government power you hand it tasks.

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. I mean sure, we don't have a problem with corruption or abuse of power by politicians and bureaucrats, because we don't give them power. In fact, the news is not chock-full of stories of precisely that theme. Furthermore, the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, does not begin with the words The Congress shall have the power, followed by the phrases executive power and he [the president] shall have the power elsewhere in the Constitution.

Not only that, but the actual powers, or tasks, which the federal government can exercise are in fact enumerated in the Constitution. Giving the government a new power is supposed to require a constitutional amendment (like the power to tax income).

Then you use Democracy to make sure those tasks don't turn into power.

As I already pointed out, your premise is flawed. But even if it were not, the electorate has demonstrated itself to be absolutely awful at restraining government power.

Stop to realized you're going to have a government whether you like it or not, and that the only real question is are you going to take part in it...

Well, the whole essence of what I proposed was clearly part of being an active participant in government. Once of the biggest threats we face is apathy, letting someone else decide because I can't be bothered to get involved. I realize that we will always have a government, but the "more government" mantra seems to be counterproductive, but people who espouse it have a hard time accepting that sometimes "more government" is not the answer.

Re:you are 100% ignorant of reality

[SirSlud]

The voters.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

The greatest trick corperate America ever pulled was convincing the electorate that it was useless to try and separate the influence of money from representative politics. Because you guys now believe it can't be done, you're convinced the best way is by handing everything over to private interests. I can't think of hotter wet dream for an oligarchy.

it even has Wikipedia entries

[liquid_schwartz]

here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:So?

[SirSlud]

See? It's useless! Laws of influence are useless! Preventing lobbying is useless! Just hand it over to the companies - it's the more honest corruption. It is incredible how successfully beaten down you folks are. Seeing a government blamed for doing what any government would do abject support for strong protections from influence peddling at the bidding of the private sector is fascinating.

You're missing my point

[rsilvergun]

you're not going to get away from corruption of power by burying your head in the sand and declaring the end of government. If you fail to create powerful centralized organizations for regulating civilization somebody else will. Maybe they won't call it a government (that'll make you feel better). Maybe they'll call it an anarcho-conglomerate or some other nonsense. But it'll be a government just the same. The differnece is you'll have zero say in how it's run.

Think of government like any other powerful, dangerous tool. Imagine a box of loaded guns lying around. If you don't pick up those guns someone else will. In this case we all need to be armed. That's what democracy is.

Re:Wrong

[Darinbob]

Capitalism requires a government to keep it working. Left to its own devices it breaks down and forms monopolies and trusts and stifles competition. The goal of "make money by any means necessary" needs to be tempered by rules, such as "don't steal from your competitors", "don't cheat your customers", "don't dump your plutonium in the river", and "don't lubricate your machines with the blood of your workers".

You're not free to buy health care

[rsilvergun]

unless you a) very, very lucky or b) willing to eat a bullet the moment you need something more complicated than a set bone. Healthcare is needed to live. Human bodies need regular maintenance past the age of about 50 (40 if you're unlucky). We're machines made of meat. And like any machine we break down over time. How well built you are is largely due to chance. Genetics, upbringing. You can't control those (no, you can't control upbringing because you can't pick your parents).

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Like any necessity for basic life.