Slashdot Mirror
FCC Accused of Colluding With Big Cable To Game 5G Legal Challenge (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via The Register: U.S. telecoms regulator the FCC has been accused of colluding with companies it is supposed to oversee in order to protect a controversial decision over new 5G networks. Chair of the House Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, has sent a letter to FCC chair Ajit Pai asking for copies of communications between the FCC and the big telcos regarding legal challenges to the regulator's 5G order, which forces local governments to charge a flat fee for installing new base stations. In the letter [PDF], Pallone strongly implies that the committee has heard from a whistleblower.
"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads. In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.
"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads. In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.
Id I may point out, courts do not have to be corrupt for judges to have different policies on the bench, especially judges in different states and at different levels of state or federal judiciary. For cases involving millions of dollars and the profitability of entire industries, it is unsurprising that they and their attorneys would invest in "court shopping". It would be considered unethical for their lawyers _not_ to steer the cases to the venue that best serves their clients' interests.
is this gonna change how anyone votes in 2020? No? Then so what.
As long as we keep voting in corrupt folks they're gonna keep being corrupt. And once again I'll drop this link to the only wing of any party that makes it a litmus test to refuse corporate PAC money. As always if anyone knows a GOP equivalent I'm all ears.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/