Slashdot Mirror
San Jose Mayor Quits FCC Advisory Committee, Says It is Dealing ISPs a 'Very Favorable Hand' (axios.com)
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo resigned today from a panel that advises the Federal Communications Commission on broadband deployment, alleging that the committee is dealing internet service providers "a very favorable hand" of policy recommendations, Axios reports. From the report: The Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee is a key element of Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's priority of making sure broadband internet reaches all Americans. "It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public," said Liccardo, a Democrat, in his resignation letter. He told Axios that he thought that the committee's draft recommendations were trying to "steamroll cities" in favor of industry access to infrastructure. He pointed to a draft model law that would give states power over permitting for wireless broadband infrastructure at the expense, Liccardo says, of cities' interests.
A Trump administration committee is advancing the interests of industry over the public. Who would ever have guessed?
He's a piece of shit.
Sam Liccardo, no wonder he is in favor of more and bigger goverment.
So one person on the committee who was against the interests of big telecom quits? If you were really trying to help the public you would have stayed any fought your hardest at anything that comes though the committee. Instead you quit like a pussy and now make it even easier for them to just rubber stamp anything that comes though.
He pointed to a draft model law that would give states power over permitting for wireless broadband infrastructure at the expense, Liccardo says, of cities' interests
And he's upset that an ISP would rather deal with one set of laws/regulations on a Statewide basis, rather than a hodge-podge of city regulations? I live in one city, and am within 3 miles of 3 other cities. That would be four different regulatory agencies for an ISP to work with, to provide service to my nearby geographic area. This seems like a smart move - let the cities engage the counties and States to get what they want, but don't make it so complex about what can be put where so that no one wants to provide service.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've never understood this move. So he gets his 15 minutes of "fame" and then is quickly forgotten. Meanwhile, the board/committee now has one less voice to advance the cause he represented. How is this effective?
And for those of you against "big government" (except when it serves your own interests), I will agree that regulations should be relaxed IF AND ONLY IF true, honest-to-goodness competition on the local level exists. It does not now and is unlikely to exist in the future because that last mile is a effective monopoly.
Of course, the solution to the Last Mile problem is to "nationalize" the infrastructure and let service providers compete without having to run a separate wire to your premise. But then this runs afoul of the "less government" crowd. So you can't win. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, but not only that they want extra icing.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
If it's favorable to wireless broadband.
That would be perfect for cities.
Oh they don't really want to deploy that? And just want to bitch that someone else is getting it?
I see.
So. More hypocrisy from democrats. m'kay. that's normal.
Don't ever mind this: (way to think).
To create a government agency that would look out for the citizens of this country and ensure that any critical services are available at a fair and reasonable cost.
Or we can go in the current direction- govt agency trying to push rules through that guarantee a few businesses the right to do whatever the hell they want.
And provide crappy, unreliable services.
My favorite part about the scum bag ISPs is the pricing. Even though the pricing for transferring data has plummeted over the years the prices to the consumer have only gone up. Why aren't we paying $19 a month for unlimited Internet? Why aren't the states doing anything about this and protecting us from clear abuse? BTW for those of you with a lot of money to spare you can buy off of State Senators for a very very small amount of money just in case you were wondering.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Obviously, Burger King needs to step in.
It's good that he sees through the bullshit and is willing to speak up about it, but it was the wrong move for him to resign from the committee; they'll just recruit someone who is a bobble-headed yes-man and will go along with the corporate cronyism, swamp-filling (as opposed to swamp-draining) bullshit that Ajit Pai is promoting. He should have stayed, and made it his mission to be the biggest pain in the ass the FCC has ever seen.
so now I am going to pick up my marbles and go home.
Guess he really didn't care and wasn't interested enough to be a voice for his position.
Q. Why is Whopper-neutrality not a problem?
A. Because BK does not discriminate.
Q. Why are there no laws regulating burger-neutrality?
A. Because discrimination has not occurred and is not a problem.
Q. Why is Whopper-neutrality not a problem?
A. McDonalds, Wendy's, Jack-in-the-Box, Chic-fil-a, Taco Bell......
Net neutrality is just a (necessary) band-aid. The real solution is competition, lots of it. Federal, state and local governments should be doing everything possible to permit, encourage and enable competitors to set up business.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The people they're made for are not the citizens. They're the funders. And local politicians can be bought stupid cheap.
That there is some pure, uncut horseshit, presented in this article without challenge.
Show of hands, please (Trumpers too!): Who here thinks "broadband reaching all Americans" is anywhere near a "priority" for Ajit Pai?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Saying competition solves everything ignores the fact that this is a natural monopoly. There is permanent first mover advantage. And there are good public interest reasons to not allow a free for all on infrastructure buildouts.
I do not understand why he quit at all. If you are against something a committee is doing, why in the heck would you give up power by leaving the committee?
023AD01("Child", "Evil");
Lol. This CBTS thing is hilarious. Tell me more, please! I need a good laugh.
How does all the golf factor in I wonder?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You're a resource, not a customer.
The customers at this point are the ISPs and the suppliers are the politicians writing favorable laws for htem.
The people of San Jose wisely understand the importance of using government resources to spread marxism into every last conceivable part of public policy.