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: 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.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(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]