Slashdot Mirror
FCC is Hurting Consumers To Help Corporations, Mignon Clyburn Says On Exit (arstechnica.com)
Former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who left the agency this month, has taken aim at it in an interview, saying the agency has abandoned its mission to safeguard consumers and protect their privacy and speech. From her interview with ArsTechnica: "I'm an old Trekkie," Clyburn told Ars in a phone interview, while comparing the FCC's responsibility to the Star Trek fictional universe's Prime Directive. "I go back to my core, my prime directive of putting consumers first." If the FCC doesn't do all it can to bring affordable communications services to everyone in the US, "our mission will not be realized," she said. The FCC's top priority, as set out by the Communications Act, is to make sure all Americans have "affordable, efficient, and effective" access to communications services, Clyburn said. But too often, the FCC's Republican majority led by Chairman Ajit Pai is prioritizing the desires of corporations over consumers, Clyburn said. "I don't believe it's accidental that we are called regulators," she said. "Some people at the federal level try to shy away from that title. I embrace it."
Clyburn said that deregulation isn't bad in markets with robust competition, because competition itself can protect consumers. But "that is just not the case" in broadband, she said. "Let's just face it, [Internet service providers] are last-mile monopolies," she told Ars. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't need regulation. We don't live in an ideal world, all markets are not competitive, and when that is the case, that is why agencies like the FCC were constructed. We are here as a substitute for competition." Broadband regulators should strike a balance that protects consumers and promotes investment from large and small companies, she said. "If you don't regulate appropriately, things go too far one way or the other, and we either have prices that are too high or an insufficient amount of resources or applications or services to meet the needs of Americans," Clyburn said.
Clyburn said that deregulation isn't bad in markets with robust competition, because competition itself can protect consumers. But "that is just not the case" in broadband, she said. "Let's just face it, [Internet service providers] are last-mile monopolies," she told Ars. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't need regulation. We don't live in an ideal world, all markets are not competitive, and when that is the case, that is why agencies like the FCC were constructed. We are here as a substitute for competition." Broadband regulators should strike a balance that protects consumers and promotes investment from large and small companies, she said. "If you don't regulate appropriately, things go too far one way or the other, and we either have prices that are too high or an insufficient amount of resources or applications or services to meet the needs of Americans," Clyburn said.
...dog bites man. Film at 11.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
Guy? Who knew? Next time RTA.
Pai was appointed to the FCC by Obama, and designated chairman by Trump, so it's not like one side of the aisle is more to blame than the other in this particular episode of "F*ck the Public".
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Your link reads like somebody trying to sell you something. Oh wait, they are!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Get rid of all the current regulation and simply force the companies to split in to wholesale and retail and regulate the price of wholesale.
You'll then get healthy competition in the retail market due to a low entry barrier.
Wow, you are posting a link from the the policy director of a telecom with a straight face and other morons on the site are agreeing with you. My only hope is that you're being paid for this drivel and I guess everybody has their price - a fitting situation in a capitalist society I suppose.
I don't tolerate lying scumbag traitors like Trump or his worthless inbred supporters, that's true. Once you cross that line and get in bed with Putin you're no longer an American as far as I'm concerned. Trump deserves a firing squad. Literally. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, and the only line Trump blurs is foreign and domestic there.
Remember that. It doesn't matter if the "Democrats" or "Republicans" are in charge, they have not represented the average American citizen for a long while.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Actually that's horseshit, given the makeup of the panel Obama was securing a conservative to keep it equal per the norm. Trump does not appoint anyone but Trump sycophants. That's a huge difference. Trump is a traitor.
Pai is a moron.
Is it your position that Obama's selection of the "conservative moron" Pai to keep it equal per the norm is in any way a defensible selection?
"Our side can do no wrong" is but the stance of a zealous parrot who lacks the funds to pay attention.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I am an old trekkie
blatent pandering to the slashdot crowd, deduct 10 points for misappropriation of star trek
Nullius in verba
The reason Democrats have lost so many seats is that they try to keep the norms while the Republicans are always pushing to the right. Reagan's policies would be denounced as a communist plot by today's Republican Party.
And that was before they rallied around a multiple divorced cheating degenerate gambler narcissist egomaniac. I can't vote Republican anymore.
I suppose someone should tell you: NN has nothing to do with when you can or cannot upgrade your network.
because the only notable things that came out of the Obama administration was Net Neutrality and stopping several anti-consumer mergers (that are now going through under Trump).
The article you link to just say that Obama was bad because the FCC regulated the info ISPs could gather but that it's mostly Facebook abusing your privacy and Obama didn't do jack about that. You're basically saying Obama didn't go far enough, which is fair. He never did. If he did, we'd have single payer healthcare and a fully regulated Wall Street banking system now. But to be fair to Obama he was saddled first with a Congress full of right wing Corporate Democrats (Pelosi, Schumer, I'm looking at you) and then the Republicans took over every other branch of the government, even stealing a Supreme Court seat from Obama.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and I'd argue it made no difference which one he appointed. To be blunt, while the Dems often side with mega corps over the working class I literally can't think of a single time when a Republican, any Republican, didn't unless they knew it was safe to do so (e.g. the Senate vote on Net Neutrality when they knew damn well it won't pass the House let alone get signed by Trump). The Republicans are completely pro corporate. If you're OK with that, then carry on. But if not you'd better start voting for the Bernie wing of the Democratic party, because they're the only credible threat to the status quo. I think after Trump staffed his cabinet with the same Goldman Sachs people, got caught making deals with the UAE to get elected and started supporting TPP it's pretty safe to say he's not doing jack for shaking things up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they're the "Bernie" Wing of the party. They're the only ones that refuse corporate PAC money. It's a requirement to join. Show up at your primary. There's plenty of candidates there and your vote is incredibly powerful in a primary because hardly anybody votes in them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...one side of the aisle is more to blame than the other...
Well, that's an odd way to run a country.
You can this set of wealthy oligarchs, or that set over there.
Come on America, get yourself a better system of Government.
The new FCC is the one aiming to protect privacy [attpublicpolicy.com].
Oh lord, yes, let's take our cues from AT&T, they're a neutral in this argument.
Seriously. Who? Again, I can't think of a single viable candidate (remember, he still has to get them confirmed by the Senate) who's pro-Consumer. I suppose he could have found a Democrat, had them switch party affiliations and go from there, but that would have been sniffed out right off the bat.
I think it's just time to face facts, the Republican party is completely, totally pro-Corporate. There's a few who are at least indifferent to workers (John McCain comes to mind) but when a decision is made they _always_ side with the mega corps. And often they go out of their way to screw workers to benefit their real masters.
Again, this isn't that Democrats don't have problems, but there are at least _some_ members of the party that refuse corporate and PAC money and side with workers. This makes the Dem party at least _potentially_ redeemable. Can you name one Republican who has refused Corporate PAC money? The Dems have an entire wing of their party (the "Justice" Democrats) for who that's a litmus test.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As has been said many many times: each president is required to appoint at least two FCC members from the opposition party. The opposition members are almost always mainline candidates who agree with their party's positions, in order to ease confirmations of the same-party candidates who have the majority of votes. Since the opposition party candidates have very little power, this is a compromise that the president can make easily.
If you have participated in even one of the FCC threads before, you have heard this already. Parroting this same line about Obama appointing Pai is deceptive.
outweigh the needs of the few.
I really had hope this would work out.
But...
Trump and his ilk have sold America to the highest bidder.
We exist now to feed the profits of the few; is it so mysterious that the suicide rate is thru the roof, and opiate drugs are sweeping the land?
Birth rates are down, because what sane creature would bring a life into this world to be so exploited?
Trump is a symptom of the rotten core of what used to be America; I'm just waiting for all the kids to take themselves out, then who will they have?
Welcome to Trump's America. You earned it.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I don't know why everyone unloads on the Federal government when the your local government is the source of the problem. Local imposed monopolies of the last mile. Lift that restriction and bam you have a free market. I would complain to your local city council your local township boards etc... Blaming the federal government for making government smaller is complete irony.
While that is true, it is a misrepresentation by omission. Obama was required to appoint someone acceptable to the Republicans. He had little choice in the matter.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why would you think that's his position? It's an absurd position. It's a strawman. His position -- obviously -- is that Obama had no practical choice in the matter, what with considering himself bound by the norms of political convention that characterised all presidencies bar the current shitshow (plus the reality that his appointee needed approval by the Senate).
learned this years ago (in germany): the Federal Ministry of the Environment does not exists to protect the environment, it is here to allow the max amount of damage and the maximum amount of exploitation of the enviromnent by private orgs before people start to riot against the current government. translate to other agencies and you know whats up.
Clyburn said that deregulation isn't bad in markets with robust competition, because competition itself can protect consumers. But "that is just not the case" in broadband, she said. "Let's just face it, [Internet service providers] are last-mile monopolies," she told Ars. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't need regulation. We don't live in an ideal world, not all markets are competitive, and when that is the case, that is why agencies like the FCC were constructed. We are here as a substitute for competition."
This guy gets it. Neither is an absolute, what's necessary is a balance. It's still difficult to agree on where to draw that line though.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Obviously not a Monty Python fan.
You do realize that Clyburn is a she, right? Even says so in the second sentence of the summary.
And the rest of your comment goes downhill from there. You're linking to the public policy page of a wolf who is lauding the current shepherd while condemning the previous one as "proof" that the current shepherd's policies are in the best interests of the sheep. I was about to say "never mind that the wolf has ulterior motives", but there's nothing ulterior about this wolf's motivations.
Obama and his entire Cabinet was chosen FOR him, before he even was allowed to run for president.
FTFY
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
"they rallied around a multiple divorced cheating degenerate gambler narcissist egomaniac"
They never rallied around him. They would probably see him dead/impeached if it were not for Pence.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
....and it was not his choice.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
I think this is the theme of CDReimer's live stream this evening.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Oh, you meant Obama...remember he chided Romney for his foreign policy, saying that the 80s called and wants it back. Then, he was caught on open mic with Medvedev. So, yeah, if Trump colluded (still waiting on Mueller to show some evidence), by all means give him hell. But, don't pretend that it's all one sided...where did that dossier come from that the DNC bought?
Just another day in Paradise
Please don't feed the AC trolls. They're probably Russians.
Just another day in Paradise
And this is what we get when we allow lobbyists to run the government, because "corporations are people too".
You may be surprised to hear that statement from a fiscal conservative, but that's just me.
Just another day in Paradise
And this is what we get when we allow lobbyists to run the government, because "corporations are people too".
Famous Romney quote, but he didn't mean that a company as an entity is an actual human being. A company is just a collection of people. The Citizen's United case decided that groups of people do not lose their collective free speech rights because they incorporate.
Groups of people are groups of individuals, all of who individually have the rights to free speech, which is not at all negated by incorporation. However, the fact is that this "right" that CU granted corporations is in fact impeding the rights of individuals to be equally heard, because individuals can't compete when it comes to getting access to our politicians...fact.
I saw the Romney speech, and know that the context you mention is correct. And, in spite of having voted for him, this is one subject where IMO he was sadly mistaken.
Just another day in Paradise
because individuals can't compete when it comes to getting access to our politicians...fact.
You could extend that easily to rich vs poor as well, the rich have far FAR more access when it comes to access to politicians than poor people do, on par with corporations. I don't know if it's a problem with "corporate people" so much as it is wealth = access. There are few things that you could do to corporations to fix this problem that you wouldn't also have to apply to wealthy individuals.
So, yeah, if Trump colluded (still waiting on Mueller to show some evidence), by all means give him hell. But, don't pretend that it's all one sided...where did that dossier come from that the DNC bought?
Had the 2016 Trump Tower meeting resulted in the confirmed handing over of any documentation originally proffered, collusion would have already been proven, at least for the 3 folks in attendance. If you doubt that Trump wouldn't have used such information, well, we have a little over 2 years worth of history to show he'd use anything factual and quite a few manufactured in attempting to harm, slander, libel, or otherwise damage others. So the only question on collusion is whether any was successful. The jury is still out on that. As far as a collusion conspiracy, at this point I'd say you'd have to be working for Trump's legal team to deny it.
That dossier was first formed at the request of Republicans. It was then sold to someone purportedly working for the DNC. It's amazing how nothing in that dossier came out prior to the election, isn't it? It's almost like it was planted. Do we actually know who authorized that dossier? Who physically took possession of it? I looked early on and couldn't successfully trace it. Maybe there's more on it now and we can have those answers. Note that none of these types of questions exist for the various meetings undertaken by members of the Trump campaign. We know who, with whom, and when and for what purpose.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.