Regulatory Capture background must-read: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
21–30 of 31 posts
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#22How is quitting going to help anything? If you're in it, at least you can try to fix it. Maybe slow things down a bit like Ron Swanson to minimize the damage they do?
It’s a publicity statement and an act of protest that he can list on his political resume in his next election.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Politicians getting publicity for doing what the public wants leading to the politician staying in office is how I want the system to work.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a publicity statement and an act of protest that he can list on his political resume in his next election.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Politicians getting publicity for doing what the public wants leading to the politician staying in office is how I want the system to work.
GP felt matter-of-fact to me and didn't seem to have negative connotations.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#24I am an architect at one of the companies that has a representative on this committee. When I have brought up discussions of localized broadband public partnerships I have been mercilessly shut down.
Capex is a limited commodity, but so is qualified legal and engineering resources. The short and medium returns on investing our growth capabilities on limited return partnerships is insufficient to warrant the effort.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#25I am all for locally based ISPs. It would be amazing if local municipalities could create incentives for financing the last mile of connectivity exclusively to local ISPs. I absolutely abhor the idea of government supplied Internet. I’m too cynical to believe that there is some magical force field that differentiates local government ethics from federal level ethics. If Snowden tells us our internet habits are snoope…
If Snowden is telling us that our internet habits are snooped on at a national level, then what makes you believe they didn't already use local connectivity to perform such a thing without the local government's authority? Who says they didn't use private connections without authority? I don't think the government had a monopoly on connectivity then. Why would it be different now no matter who controls what?
There is a small city in my area that provides internet service to the citizens living in city limits. At one time, it was twice as cheap as Time Warner (Spectrum) and had faster speeds with more reliable connections. I am not against government provided internet service so long as it operates like this.
The entire situation comes down to how one uses the power they have been given. It is evident that an ex-Verizon lawyer should not be the poster child of the future for obvious reasons. I don't know who he thinks he is fooling with his statements either.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#26Although this probably won't get discussed much in the blogosphere, it actually bothers me more than the recent reversal of the Title II classification for ISPs, over which so many electrons were spilled. In my view, actual competition from municipal fiber would produce better outcomes than we could ever get with Net Neutrality regulation. That Pai's FCC is moving in the wrong direction on this front as well is very…
This is a pretty uncontrovesial opinion. A lot of both pro and con network neutrality advocates will agree on that what we actually need is more competition, rather than more regulation.
In fact those that oppose network neutrality will use this very argument to assert that network neutrality should be repealed and all efforts should be made to advance competition and investment instead.
Too bad that when it comes to actually enabling that competition there's a deafening silence.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Politicians getting publicity for doing what the public wants leading to the politician staying in office is how I want the system to work.
GP felt matter-of-fact to me and didn't seem to have negative connotations.
It seemed kinda cynical to me.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#28How is quitting going to help anything? If you're in it, at least you can try to fix it. Maybe slow things down a bit like Ron Swanson to minimize the damage they do?
In politics, quitting something like that is often just a social cue that you disagree with what's going on. Oftentimes there will be an identified successor waiting, especially for appointed committees with forced allocations of seats among parties.
Its far less meaningful compared to quitting a full-time job, but it sounds meaningful to people with full-time jobs. :-)
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP felt matter-of-fact to me and didn't seem to have negative connotations.
It seemed kinda cynical to me.
As the GP (now GGP), I’ll settle this argument for you! :) I was being both cynical and matter of fact.
I agree that in some sense this is what politicians are meant to do. However I was commenting in the context of the GGGP comment asking what purpose this serves. The cynical tone was referencing the fact that it could indeed be more effective for the mayor to “Ron Swanson” the committee, yet he chose a more self-serving alternative that is more akin to paying lip-service to his constituents’ preferences than it is to practically serving them.
Re: Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that really address the problem? Or are you suggesting incentivizing multiple ISPs running cable for the last mile? There is a physical plant problem here. Why not let the gov't or a quasi-gov't utility run the last mile cable with a charter that prohibits them from shining light down it? Then let ISPs compete to over service. Kinda like we had ever so briefly after we forced telcos to offer unbundled loops.
Because government overreach is always a risk. It is easier to throw business people in jail than it is government employees.
I haven't ever seen any real repercussions for businesses acting against the interest of their customers, aside from high profile scandals. And even then the penalty is usually a tiny fraction of what would be appropriate.
At least the gov't has some plausible accountability to the citizens every time an election rolls around. Especially local gov't.