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.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
Guy? Who knew? Next time RTA.
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
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/
This started in New Zealand with the government forcing the incumbent telco to provide price regulated wholesale broadband to retail ISP's over their copper network - They either had to sell services to ISP's or allow the ISP's to install their own DSLAM's in their exchanges so they could run their own DSL services over the existing copper.
The incumbent then got split in to two separate companies providing wholesale network services in one and retail services in the other.
We now have the choice of dozens of different ISP's, all offering their own benefits and low cost of switching between companies.
Infrastructure investment hasn't stopped either. By 2022 87% of the population will have fibre to their home.
Over 40% of people who have fibre available have already switched and the rollout is running ahead of schedule.