Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Loses in Court -- Judges Overturn Gutting of Tribal Broadband Program (arstechnica.com)
A federal appeals court has overturned Ajit Pai's attempt to take broadband subsidies away from tribal residents. From a report: The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The change didn't take effect because in August 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the FCC decision pending appeal. The same court followed that up on Friday last week with a ruling that reversed the FCC decision and remanded the matter back to the commission for a new rule-making proceeding. [...] The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.
This isn't about Republicans, but the Trump Administration seems to be filled with people who's default stance is about making rules that tries to be cruel to people.
I am unsure if it is because they are just so out of touch with reality and the "Rich Guy" solution of the problem seems so obvious, that they just don't understand how a lot of people just do not have the upfront money, or personal power to follow these solutions.
Or they just want to be actively cruel to anyone who just doesn't fully support and love them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This move was designed to encourage build out, which even the hostile courts acknowledged. It was deliberately designed to stop paying middlemen from siphoning cash out of the reservations. But go ahead and slurp up the anti-Trump propaganda.
Slashdot headlines never read, "Barack Obama's pen-and-phone lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court (again!)"
Slashdot is now a partisan hack fake-news site?
In 2011, Pai was nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
From the article
"Separately from his tribal Lifeline plan, Pai has proposed kicking resellers out of the Lifeline program nationwide, not just in tribal areas. This would greatly limit poor people's choices, as more than 70 percent of wireless phone users who rely on Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers."
This is literally about making a utility affordable for poor people. Chill out, Cowboy. Those gosh darn injuns need telephone capability too, buddy.
"You are such a fucking idiot. Pai was presented to him as a required Republican appointment, Obama had zero say in the matter."
False. He had to make a nomination, he could have nominated someone else for the Republican appointment. Not that I'm trying to make more of it than it was, he had to pick a Republican and asked Mitch McConnell who they wanted.
"And who promoted Pai?"
Trump did but it isn't like he handpicked Pai. He was elected under a republican ticket, had to appoint a chairman, and Pai had the Republican chair. It's unlikely Trump had ever heard of him, if he was smart he negotiated something from the Republicans for it since Trump isn't really a Republican and never was.
In truth, whatever they rubber stamped to put Ajit Pai where he is neither Trump nor Obama are the real reason for it. If anything it is the people who hold Mitch McConnell's strings who bought that appointment.
According to opensecrets.org in 2018:
Communications/Electronics $853,918
Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,625,946
Misc Business $2,100,106
Other $1,510,654
The generic categories can hide just about anything but that include money for "speaking engagements" and backend deals and agreements.
And no doubt appointed chairman on recommendation of the same Mitch McConnell. Probably he was the deal or part of the deal that bought the alliance with the Republican party. People forget that despite running on a Republican ticket Trump was definitely not a Republican. The party did every short of Dems vs Sanders to try to block him.
There's a harmful $25 to keep them right where they are.
But it's OK to hand billion dollar subsidies directly to the crack-whore telecoms?
Have gnu, will travel.
Food
Water
Shelter
Internet
Yup, it is on the essentials list.
Look, all of this "who nominated or promoted who" discussion aside, let me offer up a more simple explanation that I see quite often in the work environment.
You have someone who is charismatic, competent, or has a reputation of "getting things done" (pick any or all). Under a positive type of leadership, that person is collaborative and manages to get things done. Under a negative leader, that person may still get things done, but they'll leave a trail of destruction behind them. They will burn bridges throughout their entire career and have little regard for the problems / challenges faced by others in their quest to get their own personal task accomplished.
I'm not an American and I try not to dig too deep into American politics for my own sanity, but when I read about Ajit Pai, he strikes me as the kind of person who does evil or not based on his boss.
Pai seems to be doing his level best to fuck up the FCC and hand his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold.
And, he's giving his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold by not giving $25/month to some people.
Not sure how you got from point A to point B there, but, okayyyyy...
Do you have ESP?
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers.
It would have limited âoetribal residentsâ to buying services from the telco/isp that invested in the infrastructure, rather than through third-parties that only resell otherâ(TM)s network services... Resellers donâ(TM)t invest in infrastructure, they resell it - if you want to increase âoeaccessâ and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
Itâ(TM)s like a fruit stand where the store owner sells apples for 50 cents each, but lawmakers say they must sell those apples to resellers for 40 cents each, and those resellers turn around and offer the apples for 45 cents. Keep in mind the apples cost the market 46 cents each. These resellers donâ(TM)t bring in more apples to the market, they simply sell the marketâ(TM)s apples at a discount. Eventually the grocer may decide to stock fewer apples or even drop apples from the store.
Being able to buy the exact same service provided on exactly the same network at a govâ(TM)t mandated discount isnâ(TM)t competition - it makes the service non-profitable and discourages investment in infrastructure.
Ken
You are correct. You rarely see a fair representation of conservative positions or an honest one of liberal positions for that matter. Both are spun all to hell and very few people actually understand the underlying issues. But you'd do well to take BOTH with a heavy grain of salt, if you assume both are shady and self-serving with justifications to never be the real motive and both real pro's and con's for normal people (including the 1% but not the 0.01%) to be neutral side-effect everything makes more sense.
"Do you really think the reason for this action from Pai/FCC was to "be cruel to people"? Did you actually read their reasoning for why they did this?"
Well which do you want to talk about the reason they did it or the justification they used to support their actions?
The civil war is a great example. The reason for doing it was to centralize federal power particularly for the Presidency both direct and financial. The justification was freeing slaves.
In this case the reason for the action is that Pai is a puppet for major telecom/broadband interests and this move cuts out competition. Reduced competition isn't exactly a free market cornerstone. Their justification was an argument that more money to the telco would mean increasing build-out. It all falls down when you realize no company the size of a telco is one company or one division of a company. The division which builds out infrastructure charges the division that offers service on those lines. They are required to sell services to third parties as well, in a perfect world, at the same rates (though they play shenanigans on this part).
So either there are enough people wanting the service to make it good business for the infrastructure division to take on the cost of building out or not but their consideration includes all their clients whether internal or external since both are buying services from their division.
That has nothing to do with all the subsidy money going to their internal service, that just benefits mother telco in the form of slurping up all the government subsidy money. It doesn't go back into build-outs anymore than the massive tax cuts they've received has. The division of the telco that does infrastructure build-out won't see either one and they won't build out unless business needs dictate it no matter how much you give mother telco. More likely it will go to fund Pai as a paid consultant after his FCC term and to pay for speaking engagements for him and others like McConnell. Then it will go to bonuses and dividends because telcos still pay dividends.
"Ajit Pai, he strikes me as the kind of person who does evil or not based on his boss"
Agreed but his real boss isn't Trump. McConnell wouldn't be it either. His real boss is the Telcos he came from. After he leaves his position he'll get his reward in the form of paid speaking engagements and very lucrative consultant or lobbyist position from those same Telcos. And you can quite certain those same Telcos are the ones who pulled McConnell's strings to get his name put on Obama's desk for a recommendation. McConnell probably traded some favor to Obama or Obama's staff to get it done.
Like it or not that is how politics work in this country. Evil isn't the right word. By and large the people at the top aren't evil, they are neutral to the good or ill effects. Even if they didn't start that way I can spin just about anything as good or evil and make a solid argument. Washington is filled with spin masters to put me to shame. Imagine how easy it is to self-justify your actions when surrounded by people making solid and reasoned arguments for their benefits? Nothing is that simple, everything helps some groups and hurts others without any universal good answers that don't stomp on good people.
So whether they start there or not, all of these people effectively end as sociopaths and the corporations start that way. The people they hurt are collateral damage and the people they help are incidental good.
The civil war freed the slaves, incidental good. But the sociopath at the top was centralizing the power of the federal government, which he was practically a dictator of. If you think otherwise you are extremely naive. The only ones you'll find who genuinely fought for or against human freedom on the basis of morality are the common people and soldiers up to and including middle-to-upper ranks.
They tried to take away the Obama phones? How evil of them! It's as if they believe Native Americans retained enough of their culture to still be able to hunt with bows and arrows!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't know. I didn't read their reasoning or justification because this isn't a case that interests me. I will go out on a limb and bet that it isn't "to be cruel to people".
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers....The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.
I don't understand this reasoning -- the resellers must be ultimately buying from the "facilities-based" carriers, and if these carriers are charging the resellers less than it costs to provide service, that's their own fault.
LOL
Is building their own networks part of Congress' direction for this subsidy? Or is it just to provide aid to presumptively poor tribal people so they can have Internet access?
On the gripping hand, expansive interpretation of deliberately vague congressional authorization is something the supine, cowardly congress relies on, lest they be on the hook for something unsavory or, gasp, failed.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I lived for several months in a hutong with no running water. I would go to the well pump twice a day to fill a 20 liter container, and there was a latrine shared by several families.
It was no big deal. I would much rather give up indoor plumbing than internet.
Interesting metaphor but it's missing some important details.
For one, the company that built the fruit stand was probably subsidized by the government because fruit stands were deemed to be important social infrastructure. So if the stand is partially publicly funded, why should a private corporation keep all the profit?
Second, when you go to a market there are many fruit stands to choose from. The barrier to entry is low. The metaphor breaks down when you consider that we're really talking about a wire buried underground or strung over roads. If only one company controls the wires competition is severely stifled because digging a trench across or stringing wires over roads is very expensive. Even if it wasn't, it hardly makes sense to have a separate wire going to your house for every ISP.
It makes sense for the wires to be shared and for the other end of the wire to be open to competition. If all the apples were exactly the same it would be more efficient and better for customers for there to be one stand with a bunch of competitors behind it offering prices.
And by the way that's what we do - supermarkets.
Fuck you, Ajit Pai, you crooked little scumbag. My only regret is that you won't be prosecuted for this and all your other sleazy crimes.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"He was thrown into a unique situation where the nation had come apart at its seams and the constitution didn't really spell out any contingency plans for dealing with a civil war."
It was his war. He had to fight hard and arguably broke the Constitution to make it happen. Afterward he definitely violated the Constitution and outright reshaped citizenship and government. All of it happened in a way that made him more powerful of course.
But the whole thing worked. They looked the other way afterward long enough to support the transition and those northern factories began cranking out machinery to support that agriculture business soon afterward. Lincoln and the Republicans got their ultra-powerful central government and the northern states got a piece of the southern economic pie.
"At least, he didn't cancel the elections of 1864 even though his chances looked bleak leading up to them. Dictators tend to go the other direction with elections."
I said practically a dictator. That you don't dispute he had the power to cancel the elections is an indication you agree with the reality but don't like the term.
"and a sociopath"
Of course he was a sociopath. You don't reach upper ranks of law and politics without being a sociopath. Lincoln was a particularly gifted speaker and writer. I have no doubt if he'd overseen a genocide effort we'd all still be talking about how we saved humanity and the very mention of the group would call up disgust at evil incarnate much like the term Nazi does today.
Do you know the most critical skill you learn as an attorney? Debate. You don't generally pick the topics or your position. You have to be completely morally relative and invent or embrace moralities at random.
Seriously, it didn't reduce the money available or who was eligible to get subsidy, it simply cut parasitic resellers out of the subsidy pool in favor of the providers that actually build infrastructure.
The FCC action would not have eliminated anyone's service, it would have altered the name on their monthly service bill.
That isn't "gutting" the service.
Ken
I'm sick of the term "Obama Phones". People need to read some fucking history once in awhile, and crawl down off their high horses. Obama DID NOT start that program. Hell, neither did the bush's or Clinton. The evil republican Ronald Regan started it.
What president started the free phone giveaway? The Lifeline program is a legacy President Reagan could be proud of." Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, and the FCC expanded the program to cover cellphone service in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration. The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves.Sep 12, 2013
https://www.google.com/search?...
This bull shit miss representation started when some African American lady was spouting off on TV about her Obama phones. If she only knew who actually started this goverment program, she would shit her pants.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.
The rule, if you even bothered to read the summary, cut parasitic third-party resellers out of the subsidy pool - these companies don't build infrastructure, they simply buy from those that do and sell it to their customers that could just as easily buy direct from the facilities-based provider.
Ken
The $25 subsidy checks were always going to flow, the difference is Pai wanted the customer subsidies to go to the facilities-based providers that actually provide the service, the court upheld that parasitic third-parties were entitled to those monies as well, even though the own no facilities, build nothing, merely act as an intermediary reselling others services at a markup.
Ken
Well which do you want to talk about the reason they did it or the justification they used to support their actions?
Both.
n this case the reason for the action is that Pai is a puppet for major telecom/broadband interests ...
That sounds like an opinion. Did you have the same opinion for Wheeler since he was a telco lobbyist?
Their justification was an argument that more money to the telco would mean increasing build-out.
Is the inverse true? The less money a telco has the less they build out. Seems logical to me. If you want a telco to build infrastructure, how do you do it without government subsidy? Increasing sources of income for any company in any industry is generally the way you increase investments from that company. Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China.
They are required to sell services to third parties as well
Required to sell means that even if it isn't profitable. Why would a telco build infrastructure to a community if that community can buy from a reseller that can under sell the facilities based provider? There is no motivation to upgrade.
I am not understanding your position beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad".
Resellers by definition have nothing to offer, except higher prices.
If the facilities-based provider pulls out of the reservation, because everyone buys their services from a third-party provider which the provider must offer the third-party below cost (by law), what will the resellers sell? Will they then sue for facilities-based providers to return to the reservations?
Ken
I am unsure if it is because they are just so out of touch with reality and the "Rich Guy" solution of the problem seems so obvious, that they just don't understand how a lot of people just do not have the upfront money, or personal power to follow these solutions.
That's exactly how I feel about all the government subsidies and targeted taxation imposed for the sake of "green agenda" items.
Lots of other people feel the same way. It's what triggered the Yellow Vest protests, which are spreading all over Europe.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Please explain these massive subsidies that supposedly telco's are uniquely the recipients of - they invest money and get to write-off the investment. That's not a subsidy, it's a business expense.
When your employer goes out and buys everyone new desktop computers, they also deduct that expense - is that a subsidy?
When I build a fruit stand I can deduct the cost of the actual stand - it's a business expense.
Resellers don't offer competition, they offer the exact same service, provided by their competition, at a 0profit, based on their below cost fees the government forces the facilities-based providers to offer them at.
Resellers make no investment.
Resellers don't innovate.
Resellers don't force infrastructure upgrades.
Imagine if Avis rent a car had to make their cars available to all their competitors below cost - to foster competition - at the local airport. While it reduces the barriers to starting a car rental business at the airport - you don't need to buy any cars, just resell Avis's cars, at a discount. How long would Avis stay at that airport?
Ken
It's as if they believe Native Americans retained enough of their culture to still be able to communicate with smoke signals!
FTFY, bad analogy guy.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.....
He (Ajit) has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...
"I am not understanding your position beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad"."
That's clear since your response ignores most of what I actually said and oversimplifies the issue to suit your argument.
Money coming into the company from just any source doesn't magically translate to the same result as money from another source. It might in some mom and pop but not in a massive enterprise. A massive enterprise is more like a government. In a nutshell your argument is comparable to claiming a windfall for federal transportation department will result in higher capacity and shorter wait times at your local MVD office. Except of course you are simplifying it to more funding for the transport wing of government reducing wait times for transportation services. That argument might well seem sensible to someone on the outside like the EU.
Just within Verizon you have Verizon Wireless, Verizon Wireline, Verizon Enterprise, to name a few off the top of my head and each of those is further made up of about 4-8 major distinct divisions. All of those divisions are in many ways distinct companies and many of them are yet further divided into distinct and largely independent pieces. If Verizon Enterprise, Terremark, needs cell phones for workers they take bids and while Verizon Wireless will be part of the bidding they don't automatically get the deal if they aren't the option that makes the most sense from the business profitability of. Do you think Verizon Wireless only takes orders from other verizon divisions? Nope. Internal or External, customers are just customers and they charge what they need to cover the cost of the services they are providing and make the profits they can within the market.
It's the old school "We have the best relationship you can have in business, I pay him and he pays me." Verizon doesn't build more infrastructure just because Verizon Enterprise Services Terremark makes more money, they only build more infrastructure if the wireline division determines that investing in more infrastructure will make them more money. They don't sell their services more cheaply to Verizon's ISP business except as a function of scale. If anything due to scale third parties pay higher rates and are likely more profitable for that division.
Operating the company this way makes the accounting work better, allows for better efficiencies of scale, and means that profits seen by other divisions reflect the actual costs of using other services within the company. It also means that where it would be more profitable to use third party services than internal the individual divisions have the flexibility to do that instead.
Verizon isn't a unique snowflake in this regard. Any company i've been at which has been around for at least 20 years and revenues in the billions is pretty much the same deal.
The wireline division isn't going to build out infrastructure just for the sake of doing it, they are going to build out infrastructure when their own revenue and needs result in the belief they'd be more profitable doing it and only then. No amount of money to some other division or the parent company is going to change that.
"Required to sell means that even if it isn't profitable."
Of course it is profitable. That's the whole point, wireline isn't going to charge their broadband services prices that won't cover services and generate a profit. Why would they sell at a loss? The broadband services piece gets to deduct whatever they have to pay to the wireline division at full rate and most of those expenses the wireless division gets to deduct as well. The other clients they sell to are subsidizing that cost and at some point could grow more profitable for them than their own broadband service.
"Cancelling elections because you're unpopular in peacetime and don't want to give up power for personal dynastic reasons, that's a dictator move. TOTALLY DIFFERENT, go figure you blur them."
It seems like you don't fully understand what these terms mean. Nothing about "dictator" and "benevolent" is contradictory. There are a lot of reasons having a dictator is a bad practice but for quite some time roman dictators chose the person they believed best qualified to be their successor and also had temporary dictators. One can have absolute authority and be a dictator for a term without ever using that power at all let alone using it maliciously and giving it up at the end will not mean they weren't a dictator.
"Nobody will criticize democracy so lets call our power play democracy and we will win"
People who don't make power plays don't typically end up in power. If nothing else the fact that there are plenty of people who are willing to make power plays assure that.
Nope sadly the best you can hope for is a sociopath, read between the lines and you might find one who is using a strategy that will work out okay for most people. I doubt any of them "mean to harm" the public, it is more of a disregard. Doing something that does more visible good than harm is sound politics if you are neutral. The real issue is that if you think there a political position that good vs the other which is evil you are snowed. Pretty much everything is grey and will do about as much overall harm as good. The few best answers aren't politically sound solutions such as taxing wealth rather than income, crushing degree requirements and funding and supporting independent study, supporting non-government non-profit based healthcare with startup costs supported by long term loans from the fed tap at the fed rate cutting the finance industry profits and existing players out of the loop. Real solutions like that conflict with the false dichotomies the major parties have established on these issues.
"How about avoiding politicians who clearly mean to harm the public? How about it?"
During my lifetime I've seen good evidence of four possibilities.
Obama, although long before the end of his first campaign the smoke cleared enough to know I was projecting what I wanted onto him and he wasn't the real thing.
Trump was a possibility, it wasn't certain for a bit whether he was misguiding people but meant well. Similarly it was clear enough before the end of his campaign that i could never support him but he might at least have turned out to be sincere. He still could be. Many of his statements during the separation of immigrant families basically amount to a demand for congress to take away his authority to do it and in so doing deny future presidents that power. That remains the first and only time I've seen a U.S. President demand congress take powers from their office. Other powers he's threatened to abuse could be much the same with a token nod that the method at least gives something to those he convinced to vote for him.
Sanders, the only politician who has a strong and longstanding record of actual integrity. I'd still vote for Sanders if given the opportunity. People who don't make power plays don't typically end up in power. The only reason he got to the senate in the first place is a little bit of politics with gun companies early in his career and there hasn't been so much as a whiff of it since.
And last Elizabeth Warren but there has been a lot to suggest Warren has taken the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach. I don't know that she can trusted at this point but I'd support her in a VP role.
There are a handful of young and naive millennials in new house seats that are probably sincere. By the time they grow up enough they'll be the same as the rest.
Nope sadly the best you can hope for is a sociopath, read between the lines and you might find one who is using a strategy that will work out okay for most people. I doubt any of them "mean to harm" the public, it is more of a disregard.
WOW from +5 Insightful to a +1 I don't like what he is saying in under an hour.
20 years ago all the democrats would have been republicans and vice versa. Hell, 10 years ago nobody but a foaming at the mouth die commie scum republican would have been anti-russia. They switch it up every now and then.
There's also the argument that benevolent dictator is one the best forms of government, which has some truth to it but always falls apart over or after succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"You do realise that the British Empire had outlawed slavery decades earlier, on moral grounds?"
You Europeans really do love to drink the nationalism kool-aid don't you?
"Apparently treating people as property is so repugnant it's a cause worth fighting for."
Indeed and many of our ancestors did. But that only makes it an effective justification it says nothing of the actual motivations of Lincoln. Obama centralized federal power, and Regan centralized wealth, and Lincoln did both to a degree that would make both blush.
What our ancestors did not for was for their decedents to put at a disadvantage for hiring, job retention, and education opportunities. Somehow I suspect they were dying horrible deaths fighting their own brothers with the intention of freeing men to make what they can of the hand they are dealt like the rest of us rather the cause of outright reducing the opportunities of their blameless children.
"The historiography of causes of the American civil war fills several very large libraries."
On this point I would agree. There is no one cause or motivation, there are simply far too many people. My statements regarded Lincoln who drove the choices that forced the hand of the South but even Lincoln will have had more complex reasons for his actions. Lincoln certainly perused power or he wouldn't have ended up with so much of it relative to others who were actively pursuing it but he also could have sought wealth and power siding with southern channels as well. The man was not the saint some would have you believe but that doesn't mean he didn't avoid things he himself believed were monstrous.
That's clear since your response ignores most of what I actually said and oversimplifies the issue to suit your argument.
I didn't make an argument. Yes I ignored most of your comment talking about how a large organization operates or speculation about Pai because I was asking about the underlying logic of the issue without having to wade through a diatribe about how Verizon chooses to organize even though that seems to be in vain. I thought saying "Not sure what your contention is. It isn't guaranteed unless you take control of a company. Nothing is guaranteed and we are not China." addresses your complaint of corporate organization. Yes, I agree that a company can choose to invest profits how and when they want. We are not China with direct command over the economy that force their will on business (exceptions apply).
As far as the resellers go, I thought that many are able to buy telco services at a wholesale or largely discounted price. What incentive is there for a telco to build if a reseller can undercut their profits in a given community?
In a nutshell your argument is comparable
I didn't make an argument. I questioned the logic that you dismissed and it makes sense to me and I don't understand your position beyond "big telco bad". So far your position seems to be " More money doesn't mean build out because corporations are big and they do cost benefit analysis before investing". Okay? I don't know where to go with that because it isn't my business how Verizon or any company chooses to organize. Nor do I have any idea what would be a solution for "more competition and infrastructure" because a basic premise in business is made moot (generally, increasing revenue increase investment). What conversation can be had? Even if I agree with you. Am I supposed to buy out Verizon and force a change? Advocate a new law banning certain organizational structures? Advocate for the FTC to break up Verizon because their organization and size are anti-competitive (Is 30% market share really anti-competitive position?)? Advocate command style economy like China? What is it that you're advocating? Even for TFA, what does that have to do with whether or not the FCC's attempt at removing a $25 subsidy to resellers a good thing or not and if it addressed the position you said Pai was trying to do (increase build-out to certain communities)?
The wireline division isn't going to build out infrastructure just for the sake of doing it, they are going to build out infrastructure when their own revenue and needs result in the belief they'd be more profitable doing it and only then.
Wow, they do a cost-benefit analysis before investing money because the point of "investment" is the return. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!
I still have no idea what your position is beyond "big telco bad. Pai bad" and "increase profits != increase investment". I am at a total loss and even more so after reading your response.
That and you never know if dictator is actually benevolent until after they are a dictator and can do what they really want.
Good point, along with benevolent varies on view point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Nwaack is pretending to be American. lolol.
Says the anonymous coward. LOL!
if you want to increase Ãoeaccessà and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
We paid the telcos billions to build internet out to the last mile and they literally distributed it amongst their executives in the form of bonuses. If you want to increase access and drive investment in infrastructure, the appropriate response is to either imprison those execs and reclaim their ill-gotten goods (stolen from The People) or to nationalize the telcos, and split the infrastructure apart from everything else.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
WOW from +5 Insightful to a +1 I don't like what he is saying in under an hour.
Yesterday and today have been downvote days for me, for stating a combination of clearly labeled opinions, and actual facts. Slashbot must have given modpoints to shitlords in honor of football brain damage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He overcharges rent to people like Starbucks.
Starbucks?! Well, in case...
But seriously, could you have written something sillier??
I keep picturing a bunch of people in court holding spears and sporting bone piercings, looking perplexed and mumbling among themselves about the proceedings.
FCC is already fucked up libtard.
The civil war is a great example. The reason for doing it was to centralize federal power particularly for the Presidency both direct and financial. The justification was freeing slaves.
Ya kinda reversed the timeline there, buddy.
Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.
They vote in Federal elections. They may or may not vote in state and/or tribal elections, depending on the state and the tribe.
Uh, insults aside you just described peering charges, not "federal subsidies" - "Peering Charges" come from other ISPs/service providers, not the federal government.
Ken
Here's a hint.
I wasn't talking about the subsidies.
I was talking about the other things he was doing that, taken all together, are helping his industry buddies maximize profits at the expense of their customers and the American people as a whole.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Just think how the Indians would be, if they had been flipping just left alone. But NOOOOOOO...we have to SUBSIDIZE them with welfare all the time, they turned into lazy bums for the most part. Just like with a majority of the black inner city population. Sitting on their butts, drinking, drugs, shooting each other, pumping out more and more children. Sorry for the splash of cold water, but HANDOUTS do NOT work. Give them a hand up, not a hand out!
I wouldn't call the resellers parasitic. They buy the resources from the infrastructure owners, and somehow manage to sell it to customers. This is the same way that grocery stores buy food from farmers and other food producers and sell it to customers. For some reason, the resellers are cheaper than the original owners. Maybe that is through better efficiency. Maybe it is through lower profit margins. But on the face of it, they do not seem to be bad for the overall economy. Sure, they make it harder to charge extraordinarily high prices for cellular service, but that's not a bad thing for consumers.
Note that there could be a problem if the owners are forced through regulation to sell below cost, but I don't think that is the case.
As to the policy in question, I'd rather subsidies go to the cheaper resellers than the expensive owners.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
"When he says the UK abolished slavery decades earlier, you did not answer his point only attacked his European citizenship."
No I attacked his naive assumption that the grounds on which the UK abolished slavery had any relation to the reason those in power actually acted. Granted, I assumed nationalism was at fault for this blind faith. Pride in accomplishments and actions which have no relation to you beyond having happened on the same piece broad stretch of dirt. It's a form of fanboism I don't particularly understand or partake of. A bit like doing the same with the accomplishments of a sports team or even pretending a sports team is the same team after a change in players just because they play under the same label.
From the rest of your post I see you share the same logical failure. I deserve no blame or credit for anything that is happening or has happened in the US beyond my own actions and you Europeans are entitled to the same with regard to Europe. There are plenty of faults in EU policies just as there are in the US. There are also character flaws which tend to be more common in one versus the other while both have plenty of them.
He failed to address the key element of my argument and his statement with regard to the UK was nothing but bragging about irrelevant factoid. It didn't speak Lincoln's hidden motives for his actions surrounding the civil war whatsoever. Further his attempt to educate an American on their own history was pompous and rude to the extreme. People rarely act for their stated reasons and politicians in any nation never do so. No matter what their intentions it would weaken their strategic position to overtly reveal them. The civil war reference was nothing but a famous example to which I drew a parallel. That example could be entirely without merit without actually weakening my argument.
Here's a hint: we're talking about the subsidies. Why don't you run along and play with the other kids while the adults are having a conversation?
Do you have ESP?
Here's a hint: we're talking about the subsidies. Why don't you run along and play with the other kids while the adults are having a conversation?
Sorry? What mean "we" Kimosabe?
Mine was the OP in this thread. And *I* was talking about the overall benefits Pai is pushing towards his telco buddies IN ADDITION to his shenanigants with the TBP.
Unless you're talking to yourself...
So you can be the one to toodle on along. No time for whinging little brats sniveling "but I'm an ADULT!".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Thanks- yeah, bad analogy indeed.
P.S, I also really know they're "Reagan Phones"- but it seems to me it takes a special kind of stupid to assume that the government will pay your phone bill forever.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.