SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3941
In an interview just prior to leaving the FCC this month, former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn took aim at the agency where she worked for nearly nine years, saying it has abandoned its mission to safeguard consumers and protect their privacy and speech.
Clyburn, a net neutrality proponent who served as interim FCC chief in 2013, equated the FCC's mission to the Starfleet Prime Directive, saying the agency's top priority is to ensure "affordable, efficient, and effective" access to communications—a directive it has effectively deserted under the new administration, working instead to advance the causes of "last-mile monopolies."
Clyburn spoke to Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin during a phone interview shortly before she left the agency this month.
"I'm an old Trekkie," she said. "I go back to my core, my prime directive of putting consumers first."
Clyburn said that, whereas some of her colleagues shied away from their role as a government regulator, she had embraced it, particularly when it came to internet service providers (ISPs).
"Let's face it," she told Ars, ISPs are "last-mile monopolies."
"In an ideal world, we wouldn't need regulation," Clyburn continued. "We don't live in an ideal world, all markets are not competitive, and when that is the case, that is why agencies like the FCC were constructed. We are here as a substitute for competition."
Source: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-commissioner-says-the-agency-is-a-shill-for-isps-as-1826203464
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:23PM (21 children)
Good riddance to this woman and her socialist BS. At least she's correct: ISPs *are* last-mile monopolies, but that's a good thing: that means they can enjoy handsome profits and not have to worry much about any upstart competition threatening them, so that their shareholders can profit hugely, and also so that politicians can enjoy generous campaign contributions in exchange for preventing any regulation of them. The FCC is doing a great job protecting these vital American institutions and their shareholders and executives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:34PM (19 children)
Besides, even if said monopolies grew out providing a good service, that would still be better than this "government" thing which grew out of the barrels of guns.
A violently imposed monopoly cannot save you from a voluntarily grown monopoly.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)
To prevent violence, it seems that police tasers should have a special setting labeled Sovereign Citizen.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:16PM (1 child)
A much higher voltage setting then, since those pesky informed or educated voters are much more dangerous than the regular survival-driven targets.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:23PM
People who truly deeply believe that they are not subject to the laws of civilized society should not be participating in voting.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 5, Informative) by RamiK on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:08PM (15 children)
Anthropologically speaking, tribal society diverged from the band [wikipedia.org] when we started sedentary agriculture. So technically, it wasn't "out of the barrels of guns" but rather, "out of the fields and fences".
compiling...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:22PM (11 children)
Nothing about agriculture implies coercion.
Though, admittedly, coercion is often the dumbest, easiest, least-skilled way to get a certain results in the short term (such as a system that kind of looks like property rights).
Indeed, capitalism is an iterative process; it doesn't even need to be perfect at first—you just need to start somewhere, and then follow the principle that disputes are the lack of a well-defined contract negotiated in advance of interaction.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:58PM (8 children)
How do you keep other people from eating the food you've grown? Ask them nicely to leave, or aim a spear at them telling them it's yours and they can't have it?
Borders... Fences... Wars... The Us vs. Them mentality only expands beyond the extended family level when there's land to fight over. And if people aren't organized as tribes (since there's nothing worth organizing for), they tend to split apart seasonally or when food/water runs out so coercion doesn't have a chance to take place. This was observed live by anthropologists in Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and Africa all the way to the Inuits.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:49PM (6 children)
As the AC pointed out:
A dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract; under capitalism, these disputes decrease in number and severity over time as social interaction becomes increasingly well defined through culturally acceptable dispute resolution, codification in contract negotiation, and then enforcement of said contracts (a service that need not be provided by a monopoly—hence a union of states, or the general lack of one world government, etc.).
Enforcement of a contract is necessarily specified as part of the contract; such enforcement is by definition voluntary, as all parties to the contract agreed to such enforcement prior to interaction.
Here is the other part that the AC already was smart enough to point out:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @09:56PM
Are you SURE you're not the same AC? Cause that seems highly likely with a line like "already was smart enough" lololol
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 25 2018, @05:06AM (4 children)
A contract backed up by the use of force.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @01:50PM (3 children)
to which the parties have actively and explicitly consented at the time of contract formation.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 25 2018, @02:23PM (2 children)
Too often there is a power in-balance where one party feels forced and/or one party feels like they're free to break or change the terms.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @02:41PM (1 child)
I agree that power imbalance is a problem that needs to be solved, but I see it as a separate question from whether human interactions should be governed by violence or consent.
BTW, just curious, what is your native language?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:10AM
Consent is always the best and usually works but too often there are people who push things. Contracts often are incomplete, seems there is often things that are left out, sometimes due to it just seeming like its common sense or corner cases.
There are a couple of types of people that will try to take advantage. The rich, cheap boss type and people from a different culture where trying to take every advantage is normal.
Canadian English, using an American spell checker which seems to have corrected a typo (hitting n instead of m) in a weird way.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:13PM
Use harsh language [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:07PM
O RLY? "Immovable property" does not ring a bell?
A hunter can move, and a hunter can kill. A peasant, in general, can do neither; a perfect prey.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:11PM
I never agreed to ready your screed yet here we are. You have violently imposed your bullshit upon my eyeballs, so will you respect my right to not see your crap? Of course not, cause you're a disingenuous punk with too much "vision" for your own good and not enough wisdom to be any use.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Out of us going into?
Every time a collection of people agree on something, there will be dissenters who don't, and who will complain that others' wills are being imposed on them. Ug the caveman learnt that, and he lost two fingers on his left hand for it. They didn't want to kill him, as he was still bloody useful at tracking.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Troll) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @01:52PM (1 child)
A collection of people cannot do anything. Only the individual people do things.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday May 25 2018, @07:28PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:07PM
even the FCC can't protect the steaming pile called frontier communications from their own stupidity. the customers ain't happy, and the shareholders are even less happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:32PM (6 children)
Only politicians or their Mignions care to spout that rhetoric, because their own self-interest depends on successfully wooing the votes of the unwashed masses.
Meanwhile, shit needs gettin' done, and so the producers are often too busy even to vote.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:55PM (5 children)
That would be minions, unless you plan on eating them.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DaTrueDave on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:25PM
Woosh...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:42PM (3 children)
I liked the GP's spelling.
Even a steak gets more attention from a politician than a voter.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)
Not only that, their own, um . . . personal hygiene, gets more attention than a voter.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:33PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @09:50AM
Of course not. They didn't climb to such heights to still be them to wipe their own asses. They have sycophants to lick their asses clean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:28PM (2 children)
Of course she is unhappy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:14PM (1 child)
She's unhappy because she bought into the delusion that the FCC is to safeguard consumers instead of safeguarding the rich, powerful and connected.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday May 25 2018, @05:04AM
Isn't that the whole idea of a "representative" form of government to decide on such things?
How hard will it be to convince a million people to agree to something that benefits someone else at the people's expense?
How hard is it to convince a dozen "representatives" to agree to something that benefits someone at someone else's expense?
I believe there are many things we should not let "representatives" decide for us.
This is a good example.
You don't know how bad I wish my town would decide to hold a vote whether or not to grant the ISP a monopoly, or do it ourselves as a public utility.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:44PM (27 children)
Given the quality of service that companies like Comcast and CenturyLink provide why don't we just nationalize the internet companies? Taxpayers pay for the infrastructure so why should a private company be able to monopolize the exports of that infrastructure? If Comcast was going out of its way and building into its business model a way to provide fiber or upgraded service then I would say they are value added, but they aren't. Rather than increase their ability to provide service the companies oversell their service and then put harsh data caps in place. F em.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:57PM (16 children)
The government needs to change the laws so that nobody would ever be prosecuted for selling 10,000 tickets to a theater with only 3,000 seats.
If people are unhappy with their ticket purchase, that's their problem! They should take personal responsibility!
The theater owner is simply engaging in commerce providing a service.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:03PM (15 children)
Caveat Emptor; understand your agreements in advance of interaction.
That's the foundation of a free society, and you dimwits are always trying to dismantle it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:18PM (10 children)
If a mugger hits you over the head, and stomps your balls, twice, then robs you, it's clearly your own fault for not understanding your agreements in advance of your interaction.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:30PM (9 children)
So... what could your point possibly be?
Your "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!!111" screams are useless; your own system already fails, and yet you have to keep paying for its institutions just the same.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:40PM (7 children)
There should be a law. People should obey the law. The laws should be justly enacted and enforced. Corruption should be illegal. Bzzzzzzt! I think I just found the failure mode!
No society will ever be perfect. Ours has its deep flaws. But mostly it had been better than most other forms of government. However our system was doomed once we got to where only the corrupt can come into power to continue the corruption at the behest and sponsorship of powerful meg corporations. The founding fathers could never have imagined such concentrations of wealth and power that are the modern mega corporation. Otherwise they would have spelled out protections. Even so, they did give us many protections. It's just that they've been "worked around".
Part of it is to keep the population ignorant and deeply divided.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:33PM (5 children)
I think we need to stop engaging, either the AC is a troll or an idiot. All the pitfalls have been pointed out to their 100% voluntary everything, yet they ignore those and just repeat the same bullshit. So either a troll pushing some type of agenda / lulz, or an idiot. Either way, probably best to ignore and start marking as spam any duplicated or off-topic posts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:20PM (4 children)
The agenda: let the powerful and weak fight unrestricted by any law.
I wonder which side stands to benefit from such a position? Which side can pay shills to obnoxiously push it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:49PM (3 children)
A contract is an agreement between 2 parties, and such an agreement must be made in advance of interaction.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @12:03AM (2 children)
And a contract between a weak and a powerful will always be equatable, no guarantees are necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @01:25AM (1 child)
... especially when you're tugging at the robes and begging for help from some hideous creature like Uncle Sam.
You want guarantees? Associate with enforcers and collective bargainers for whom you have respect, and include them in your contracts.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @02:16AM
As little as it may be, do you want bread on your table or not?
Here's the 1000+ pages contract our contractual experts** drafted.
Why, there are some provisions to defend your interest, see page X where we agree any arbitration will go through "Z-arbitration Ltd".
Yes, it's our subsidiary (how did you know?), but how's that relevant?
Listen, you either sign the contract now or take your freedom and start foraging in garbage dumps.
---
** no, in the absence of laws, there's no such thing as a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:51PM
You're a fool who pulls crap out of his ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:14PM
You are just too fucking dumb. If I had the patience I would 100% go collect all your posts and make a website out of them. Lets see, herpderpree.com IS available!
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:19PM (3 children)
In a free society a person would build something with their own capital or voluntarily invested capital from third parties and sell access to it. In a slave society someone will force you to build something with your own money and then charge you to use it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:24PM
However, that doesn't mean you should try to hack away at the necessary foundation of a free society.
A free society implies caveat emptor, but caveat emptor does not imply a free society.
In practical terms, this means that a Nanny State is not an acceptable solution.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:44PM
Even if you build something with your own capital (or voluntarily invested capital) does not mean you can do anything you want. The freedom is not a license to destroy others' freedom, enslaving them through concentrations of capital that are modern mega corporations. If a private enterprise were to really destroy the planetary environment and biosphere, would that be a good thing, because it was profitable?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:45PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:01PM (4 children)
These quasi-monopolies that you hate were born of governmental policy.
That which you hate is already the fruits of "nationalization" (or whatever word you'd like to use for at least the municipal or state level).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:45PM (3 children)
> These quasi-monopolies that you hate were born of governmental policy.
Hey, did you know Marx just turned 200 ?
Just pointing out that it's not exactly news that unregulated capitalistic markets generate monopolies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:47PM
Regulated markets create monopolies.
Not only do they pick winners and losers, but they set the bar such that only incumbents can play by law.
That's the issue with the ISPs for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @01:27AM (1 child)
Regulated markets create monopolies.
Not only do they pick winners and losers, but they set the bar such that only incumbents can play by law.
That's the issue with the ISPs for sure.
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Friday May 25 2018, @05:23AM
I find nothing wrong with "natural" monopolies.
If one guy built a light bulb manufacturing plant, and through economies of scale, no-one can compete. He can make light bulbs far cheaper than you can. Any problem with that? Buy your light bulbs from him.
Now, what I hate are legally enforced monopolies. You can make light bulbs as good as he can... but he has the backing of "men with guns" to enforce his monopoly, and you are not allowed to compete because men with guns will confiscate your facilities. You are not allowed to use "men with guns" to do the same.
Because Congress said so.
That is not "free enterprise". That is "Crony Capitalism". Al Capone style.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:05PM (4 children)
You think service can't get worse? Have you never experienced the TSA?
Realistically, the federal government would just outsource it to Comcast and CenturyLink. They'd become government contractors. They would quickly learn to just do the letter of the contract and nothing more.
If the federal government avoided contractors though, which doesn't seem likely, then it'd be like the TSA.
Local government is a better choice, particularly if they can be discouraged from contracting everything out to the same company. Local government can screw up badly, but people can do something about it. It is practical to move to the next town (instead of the next country), and it is practical to go chew out the city manager.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:21PM (3 children)
You are correct in my use of the word nationalization. I would want this to be done at the local government level and not at the federal level.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:27PM (2 children)
The local governments granted those monopolies, and ultimately control them.
Comcast, et al., already are de fact contractors for governmental infrastructure.
What you hate is the coercive nature of government.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:57PM (1 child)
As a contractor, they would only have one customer to bill. They would not bill individual homes.
They would also not own the equipment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:56PM
The government contracts to them the customer administrivia as well.
Alternatively, you can just view them as being even more governmental in nature.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:57PM (6 children)
I thank her for her service. And Ajit thanks her for her service. But stay tuned, folks. We'll bring in another Dem. Probably another Dem -- although, I don't have to. And very very probably another DRAMA QUEEN. Because so many of them are. Right? Let's hope it's someone that's very easy on the eyes!!!
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:59PM (5 children)
I heard that the president does not discriminate. Not even against people who are shallow and lacking in substance. I even head that some of his best Russian friends are inflatable!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Snow on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:29PM (4 children)
Inflatables are fantastic for watersports.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:44PM (3 children)
Well, as I understand it he does like to have golden showers....
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 24 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
Since he uses a golden toilet.
That would make sense.
It would cost many cents.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:53PM
Fake News. We asked the Guggenheim to loan us a Van Gogh for the @WhiteHouse [twitter.com]. The bimbo curator told us "no." She didn't tell us "no," she said we could borrow a gold toilet instead. One that THOUSANDS of people had done their business in. NO DEAL!!!!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:59PM
Zero evidence discredited Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign. WITCH HUNT!
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday May 24 2018, @09:59PM (5 children)
It should be clear by now that We The People have absolutely NO influence or control over the Federal Government.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24 2018, @10:51PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday May 24 2018, @11:34PM
Tut-tut, FatPhil! Incite to violence against unchecked capitalism while enjoying free public transport safe from BMW pricks? That's what a commie will do.
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Touché) by tizan on Friday May 25 2018, @12:57AM (2 children)
Its tools of another era v/s a government armed with tools of mass destruction
The amendment you are talking about is out of date and useful only to keep gun manufacturers in business. Sure guns are useful for hunting or range target practice and for nuts to kill kids...not useful to overturn a bad government today as the said amendment was designed for (being a government with soldiers with guns only).
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 25 2018, @02:46AM (1 child)
Our Founding Fathers hated their King. Because he kept his army around even when there was no war (they called it peace). And for many reasons. So they said, let's have a part time army, let's only have an army when we have a war. Not a "standing army." We'll have guys that know how to shoot, they won't work in the military as their regular job. They'll be farmers, real estate guys, many things. And when we have a war we'll call them. The militia. But fortunately, nobody listened. We have an army all the time. And we need to, because we have wars all the time. And because so many Countries have a Nuclear Button, so we need a much bigger & more powerful one. A Button that works very very reliably and very very quickly!!
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday May 25 2018, @05:31AM
Dear President Trump:
My fear is our "enemy" will not nuke us. They will buy us!
Now, why would any modern enemy want to sully our farmland with nuclear fallout?
Just get us into debt, then foreclose!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]