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