31–40 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama is not going to be able to fill any spot that requires Senate confirmation.
I'm not sure it requires confirmation if it's filling a spot with an incomplete term.
She was very candid about the position of the FCC and the fact that she was finally able to speak her mind because this was going to be one of her last public appearances as a government official. One thing that stuck me was what she said about Tom[1]: "He actually believes that the consumer, the american people, are his clients. He's said that from the first day and he'll say that the day he leaves. Trust me, he doesn't like any of the companies [laughter]". The loss of the current administration of the FCC (including but not limited to Tom) will be a great loss for the American people in my opinion.
The conference was interesting and somewhat sad, because it was planned before the election and probably with the assumption that the new administration would not be totally hostile. Instead of the original direction of "here's what we've done and how we plan to carry these goals forward" it ended up being more of a retrospective on progress that had been made at the federal level that was about to be erased.
From the people I saw, there did not seem to be anyone there representing the new administration.
[1] https://youtu.be/O5drVTSpH5g?list=LLDlLvM2YAVFtSXvebIrlE0A&t...
Wait, he's the cable industry shill, right? So this is the best news ever?
He was the opposite in the recent times. Unlike any of his predecessors, he pushed a tremendous amount of consumer friendly policies and curbed monopolistic abuses of incumbents. He failed to repeal anti-competitive local state laws which ban municipal Internet, but he managed to pass Net Neutrality rules. It would be a pity if all that effort will be dismantled by corrupted commissioners backed by monopolists who ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it requires confirmation if it's filling a spot with an incomplete term.
If congress is in session it'd require confirmation. The exception is a recess appointment but that's not going to happen as they're already keeping congress continuously open to block Garland's recess appointment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of thing has been said for years. I placed a long bet with a friend 7 years ago when he said "in 5 years" we'll have what was described above. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.
There's a reason it hasn't happened yet; it's not some sort of deterministic process. Many people worked hard to stop it from happening, and a new FCC chairman could change the status quo.
Sometimes working in technology feels like working stage crew -- the audience doesn't give a crap about your existence until you screw up.
Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood.
What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?
Got an error when clicking on that link: "Wired.com is not included in your Comcast Internet Basic package. Click here to upgrade to Comcast Internet Extreme for $9.99 more a month, for access to Wired.com and twenty other premium web sites!"
This type of thing has been said for years. I placed a long bet with a friend 7 years ago when he said "in 5 years" we'll have what was described above. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.
Wait, he's the cable industry shill, right? So this is the best news ever?
I've covered a lot of Tom Wheeler's work in the last few years. He's probably the best FCC head in the past two decades. If he had a rep previously for being an industry shill, he blew it out of the water in his three years at the helm. (Meanwhile, Michael Powell made the opposite move: He's currently in charge of the cable industry group.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it requires confirmation if it's filling a spot with an incomplete term.
If congress is in session it'd require confirmation. The exception is a recess appointment but that's not going to happen as they're already keeping congress continuously open to block Garland's recess appointment.
One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood. What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?