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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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 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.