Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday May 24 2018, @05:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the s/(CC)/U\1-U/g dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 25 2018, @05:06AM (4 children)

    by dry (223) on Friday May 25 2018, @05:06AM (#683894) Journal

    A dispute is the lack of a well-defined contract

    A contract backed up by the use of force.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday May 25 2018, @01:50PM (3 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Friday May 25 2018, @01:50PM (#684006) Journal

    A contract backed up by the use of force.

    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)

      by dry (223) on Friday May 25 2018, @02:23PM (#684020) Journal

      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)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday May 25 2018, @02:41PM (#684028) Journal

        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

          by dry (223) on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:10AM (#684274) Journal

          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.