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.

28 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. You don't say? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    The whore colluding with the john against the government? No way!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:You don't say? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The whore colluding with the john against the government? No way!

      Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re: You don't say? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Err.. no, blow jobs are the stock and trade of business. Err...

      Still livin in the 90's, fo shizzle.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:You don't say? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Calling Ajit Pai a whore is an insult to whores.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:You don't say? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?

      Giuliani is that you?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    5. Re:You don't say? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Funny

      He is doing a great job.

      I agree! It takes a lot of butt-hole exercise to prevent prolapse when you're taking that much corporate dick.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    6. Re:You don't say? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      Calling Ajit Pai a whore is an insult to whores.

      At least with a whore, there's a happy ending.

    7. Re:You don't say? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?

      Giuliani is that you?

      Is crime even crime?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:You don't say? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't mean to insult working people who actually provide a valuable service to the population.

      I'd like to apologize.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. They should be charged by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    with treason and sentenced to death.

  3. Drain that Swamp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another win for the MAGA useful idiots

    Carrying water for billionaires

    1. Re: Drain that Swamp! by kqs · · Score: 1

      The best part about the Trump administration is that the overall effect has been to drain the swamp. The Muller Probe guilty pleas, the White House turnover, exposing corruption and collusion which threatens the United States itself - this is all great for our country.

      Well, no. All of the corruption being removed now was installed by the Trump administration, so the overall effect is zero. And he's appointing new corrupt folks as quick as we're removing them, and now we don't have time to deal with the pre-existing corruption, so the overall corruption is increasing rapidly.

  4. Re:Subtext by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. I said it before and I'll say it again by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    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/
  6. Re:Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Many years ago, a state (I think TX: Google is failing me.) passed an open container law. The entire legislature vote for it. However, the law just said "open container" and the lawmakers assumed that everyone would "know" that it must means alcohol.

    That phrase generally has a specific legal meaning, which returns me to my original point. Either malice (deliberately ignoring that meaning) or incompetence (not knowing that meaning) is required for the interpretation of the law to vary. The law can also be written maliciously and/or incompetently, of course, in order to attempt to cause such problems.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Big cable? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    So, the major telecom operators are "big cable" now.
    I am waiting for the days we'll call the leaders of the democratic party "big ass".

    1. Re:Big cable? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      we'll call the leaders of the democratic party "big ass".

      Nope. "Big ass" would clearly be in reference to the $75 Billion global strip club industry.

  8. The jobs are leaving the country anyway by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Trump outpaced Obama for outsourcing and he's a GOPper. We tried your way and it didn't work. Now try mine. It works. It worked in the 50s when we had a 90% top marginal and it'll work now.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. What the hell kind of article is this by chispito · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Who wrote this?

    Chair of the House Commerce chair, Frank Pallone

    From the department of redundancy department.

    Not only has Pai's office pandered to Big Cable to an excessive degree in the past two years, pushing through changes vehemently opposed by everyone that isn't one of the main telcos, there has been a rumors that the regulator is actively working in secret with companies it is supposed to oversee.

    Grammatical errors aside, this writing is just... awful.

    But local government officials were very suspicions something untoward was going on.

    This whole affair is very suspicions indeed.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  10. Wow that's a lot of effort for a shit post by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so I can't resist feeding you a bit more, even though I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls.

    WWII doesn't really matter in this context. It's a strawman you're using to distract from my main point, which is that giving all the money to the 1% hasn't stopped them from outsourcing jobs. We just borrowed $1 trillion and gave it to the 1% in the form of tax cuts and they used it for mother f*king stock buy backs. No jobs, no investment.

    Companies don't hire because they've got money, they hire to meet demand. That is why demand side economics works and supply side (aka trickle down) fails. That's the "OVERALL" economic picture that you're ignoring.

    But you're just an alt-right troll. You're not interested in solving problems or being right, just winning. I'm not the one that figured that out either, this guy is. He's got a whole series of videos on guys like you.

    Thing is, if you're being paid it's not enough. Eventually they'll eat you alive. And if you've drunk the kool-aid then stop. It's poisoned. Go watch the videos on the Alt-Right playbook linked above and learn how you've been had.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  11. Just great by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order ...

    Now we can look forward to an endless series of tweets claiming "NO COLLUSION" from Ajit Pai and the FCC too -- sigh. :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Just great by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Now we can look forward to an endless series of tweets claiming "NO COLLUSION" from Ajit Pai and the FCC too -- sigh. :-)

      Nah. Pai knows the fix is in. The Trump Justice Department will never charge him with anything. The House will puff and bluster and hold hearings, then do nothing. Even if they decide to impeach, the Senate will never convict (yes, impeachment applies to more than just the president). We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt those gutless partisan fucks will toe the party line no matter what. Pai can do any fucking thing he wants, including outright criminal conspiracy, and get away with it. And he knows it. On the contrary, not only will he not suffer consequences, he'll accept a cushy job from Verizon once he leaves the FCC.

  12. They don't _have to be corrupt by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but it sure helps.

    This is the result of two decades of court packing with pro-corporate justices. This is also what happens when you let money hoarding go unchecked. When it gets to be more money than a person can spend it's not money anymore, it's power.

    We've let too much power accumulate into the hands of too few. We're going to start paying the price more and more often.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They don't _have to be corrupt by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      As someone who is probably older than you, I've observed that "packing the courts" is commonplace. It upsets us most when we see the packing as unfair or against the common interest, or even against law itself. It's certainly occurred throughout the history of judges and whatever selection process is used for them.

  13. Re:Subtext by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    > The law is the law

    If I may point out, that statement is an aphorism. It contains a general truth, but often breaks down very badly if applied badly. Judges generally have a great deal of authority to make a decision _within_ the law. Sentencing guidelines are set in the law as _ranges_. If the law did not require interpretation, there would be far, far fewer lawyers.

  14. weasel worded by tomhath · · Score: 1

    "It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have..."

    Qualified accusation in the passive voice. Sounds like even the Register thinks it's Fake News.

  15. Huawei? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    So, Ajit Pai has made a huge deal out of supporting deregulation of broadband in America. In fact, the FCC has been trying very hard to define 5G as a legitimate replacement for fiber (it could in theory work). And the American government has spent years attacking Huawei, even far past the point of rationally.

    Who in the White House has interests related to 5G infrastructure? I doubt itâ€(TM) Trump is involved, not unless they are helping him get the wall, though it could be. What about his cabinet?

    While I trust Huawei only a smidgen more than I trust Cisco (and Cisco feeds my family, but they are my creepy/dirty uncle), this is screaming conspiracy now. Someone who can influence the Whitehouse stands to profit hugely from keeping Huawei out of the 5G roll out. At least it really seems that way.

    It would also explain almost everything Ajit Pai has done since coming to power.

    What do you people think?

    1. Re:Huawei? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      Does it make any difference who the corrupt actor is in this case? Perhaps a company beholding to the Chinese state is worse then a corrupt US company in cahoots with the government/industrial complex, but you are screwed either way. Put another way, you could get hit by a speeding truck on the sidewalk or be shot by a stay bullet in your living room. Either way you're dead meat.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?