SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
T-Mobile's outage yesterday was so big that even Ajit Pai is mad:
T-Mobile's network suffered an outage across the US yesterday, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who takes an extremely hands-off approach to regulating telecom companies, used his Twitter account to say, "The T-Mobile network outage is unacceptable" and that "the FCC is launching an investigation. We're demanding answers—and so are American consumers."
No matter what the investigation finds, Pai may be unlikely to punish T-Mobile or impose any enforceable commitments. For example, an FCC investigation last year into mobile carriers' response to Hurricane Michael in Florida found that carriers failed to follow their own previous voluntary roaming commitments, unnecessarily prolonging outages. Pai himself called the carriers' response to the hurricane "completely unacceptable," just like he did with yesterday's T-Mobile outage. But Pai's FCC imposed no punishment related to the bad hurricane response and continued to rely on voluntary measures to prevent recurrences.
[...] Mobile voice services like T-Mobile's are still classified as common-carrier services under Title II of the Communications Act, but the FCC under Pai deregulated the home and mobile broadband industry and has taken a hands-off approach to ensuring resiliency in phone networks.
"This is, once again, where pretending that broadband is not an essential telecommunications service completely undermines the FCC's ability to act," longtime telecom attorney and consumer advocate Harold Feld, the senior VP of advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars today. "We're not talking about an assumption that T-Mobile necessarily did anything wrong. But when we have something this critical to the economy, and where it is literally life and death for people to have the service work reliably, it's not about 'trusting the market' or expecting companies to be on their best behavior. We as a country need to know what is the reality of our broadband networks, the reality of their resilience and reliability, and the reality of what happens when things go wrong. That takes a regulator with real authority to go in, ask hard questions, seize documents if necessary, and compel testimony under oath."
Several provisions of Title II common-carrier rules that Pai has fought against "give the FCC authority to make sure the network is resilient and reliable," Feld said. The FCC gutting its own authority "influences how the FCC conducts its investigations," he said. "[FCC] staff and the carriers know very well that if push comes to shove, companies can simply refuse to give the FCC information that might be too embarrassing. So the FCC is stuck now playing this game where they know they can't push too hard or they get their bluff called. Carriers have incentive to play along enough to keep the FCC or Congress from re-regulating, but at the end of the day it's the carriers—not the FCC—that gets to decide how much information to turn over."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @03:11PM (27 children)
The problem more than anything else is that the people often don't have an option to vote for that isn't in favor of laissez-faire capitalism and socialism for the wealthy. Even in areas where there are candidates that claim they do, they often vote for the same corrupt leadership that the other politicians do. I'm beginning to think that nothing shy of somebody going on a shooting spree in the capital is going to change the corrupt nature of the place. Which is a really sad thought that the voters vote mean so little that the only way to effect change is a literal cleansing of the chambers by force.
I used to think that the voters were dumb, but the reality is that the voters aren't dumb, they're just the last few that have any modicum of hope that voting might have an impact. It should be no surprise that virtually nobody votes when such luminaries as Pelosi and McConnel are running the show.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:13PM (26 children)
You shouldn't stop. Given that 43%(!) of eligible voters in the US didn't exercise their political franchise in 2016, I think we can infer that many, if not most of those folks are, in fact, dumb as a box of rocks.
It's plainly obvious that who and how we vote can make a huge difference in our society. That so many choose not to vote *implicitly* validates the status quo. Which leads to the obvious question: Does that 43% support current policies, or are they just ignorant and/or scornful of the importance of the political franchise?
As the eminent philosopher said [youtube.com]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:56PM (9 children)
Apathy != stupidity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:08PM (8 children)
Depending on the situation, apathy can absolutely be stupid, or at the very least ignorant.
If you are apathetic about something important that can directly impact your life in significant ways, that strongly indicates either ignorance or stupidity. Given your objection, I agree that my statement wasn't expansive enough.
As such, I'll modify my earlier statement as follows:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:33PM (7 children)
Apathetic != hopeless. Over the last 40 years in particular, the ability of the people to affect change on their government has gotten less and less due to court rulings granting additional rights to corporations and media consolidation. We got sort of lucky that a few progressives got through the last couple elections, but nowhere near enough to affect even slight change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday June 18 2020, @09:26PM (6 children)
If people actually voted out representatives who legislated against their interests (and the politicians knew that) then there'd be very effective change. The US has one of the lowest turnover rates of politicians in the developed world (97% of the House and 93% of the Senate were re-elected in 2016). It's clear that the issues of the day make very little difference to how people vote (and in turn, how the representatives vote in legislation).
It doesn't have to be that way. In most other democracies (or republics for those pedants out there), voting for bad stuff will get you kicked out down the track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @10:21PM (5 children)
And replace them with whom? That's the point you're not getting. Simply replacing politicians with ones that support the same corrupt practices does nothing to solve any of the problems.
They get elected, pass some legislation that the donors like, and then when they are voted out of office wind up with plum jobs. Simply voting one out of office and replacing them with another just speeds up the process, it doesn't change the outcome. Just look at how quickly many of those politicians start voting against the interests of their constituents.
In other Democracies, the people don't have to contend with legalized bribery, gerrymandering and court decisions that basically allow the politicians to choose their own voters and disenfranchise those most likely to vote them out of office.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 18 2020, @10:48PM (1 child)
I agree that there are many, many, MANY problems facing the US political system (as well as just about everything else). However, politicians looking for a job for life would quickly realise that they need to actually deliver legislation that the populace will like if they are to be re-elected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:26PM
That misses the point. That's not how they're making money. They care far more about pissing off their donors than they do not being re-elected. They make most of their money by becoming a lobbyist, consultant or talking head after leaving office. Yes, there's a few that are corrupt enough to make huge sums while in office, but it pales in comparison to the money that's available to those that properly back the donors when they leave office. It's why you see them acting corruptly pretty much from the moment they get elected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @12:18AM (2 children)
How about you? If you really believe that your representatives are corrupt (and assuming you aren't as well), who better to take on these scumbags than you?
What's that? You don't want to get involved? Well too bad. You *are* involved. Because the laws enacted by our representatives impact you just as much as it does everyone else.
Whinging about how corrupt the people *you* elected are, and claiming there's nothing you can do is self delusion of a high order.
I expect that my comment will make you angry or feel like you're being attacked. Don't respond right away, friend. Think about it. Sleep on it. And then come back and explain to me why I'm wrong. Or agree with me.
Either way, let's try to figure out how to make things better -- you know, light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @02:45AM (1 child)
It must be nice to be rich. We can't all afford the time it takes to run for office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @11:45AM
And this is why representative democracy and capitalism are innately incompatible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:08PM (4 children)
What's the point really, Party A fucking people over is hardly any better than Party B fucking people over. In most cases, even in the primary, the candidates that promise anything else get ruthlessly taken down by any shady means necessary by the establishment to ensure that the ultimate winner will toe the same line as before.
You get some woke-tokenism out of the Democrats, but they're just as quick to appoint incompetent judges that will back the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor, just slightly less brazenly than the GOP appointees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:05PM (3 children)
And why is that? Because only 1/2 the eligible population votes. If we had 80-90% voter participation instead of 57%, as well as implementing stuff like Ranked Choice Voting [wikipedia.org], publicly funded elections, and strong rules around lobbying and government/industry revolving doors. we could have much better candidates and, consequently, better representatives.
Just throwing up your hands and whinging "they're all the same, it doesn't matter" just supports the status quo you *claim* to dislike so much.
Want to make a difference? Work towards the changes I mentioned above. If you're not *at least* voting every. single. time. you're part of the problem.
But go on whinging online about how nothing makes a difference. That'll teach those corrupt motherfuckers!
You have a voice. If you don't use it to argue for and work towards something better, you are supporting what you say you hate. I believe the term is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
If you want a voice, go out and fucking vote! And I don't even care who you vote for either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:32PM (2 children)
Pretentious cunt. I do vote, I also recognize that voting is essentially a waste of time and effort as there's no good choices available and the politicians basically ignore what the voters want. You might be privileged/naive enough to believe otherwise, but it's a fact of life in America that voting is basically meaningless. They'll cram whatever candidates they want down our throats no matter how bad it looks and there's not really anything to stop them as they own the courts.
Ranked Choice Voting is hardly a panacea, it depends upon there being candidates that are worth voting for. Here in Seattle we wound up with a horrible mayor because there were so many candidates that were running that all the decent ones failed to get enough votes to advance to the general election. We wound up having to decide between a right wing candidate and an overtly racist White woman.It's trivial for donors to dig up enough candidates that they can corrupt to do the same under Ranked Choice Voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:47PM (1 child)
Thanks for being so kind. I'll see you next Tuesday too, friend.
I noted that you ignored the *most important* changes I mentioned. I wonder why that is?
Here In NYC we have publicly funded elections, and will soon have Ranked-Choice Voting too. Publicly funded elections means that every candidate has (or should have) the same resources as every other one.
We also have term limits (no thanks to that undemocratic scumbag Michael Bloomberg) too.
Is it perfect? No. Our mayor, while he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, is strongly constrained by the City Council, some of whom aren't that fabulous either. However, it's a much better, fairer and more (small d) democratic situation than we've ever had.
I'll say it again. If you're not working to make things better, you're part of the problem. Here's a few suggestions for you [amazon.com]. Assuming you can read anything longer than a couple of paragraphs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @11:54AM
You are missing the point. Most Americans don't have time, money, or connections needed to enter politics and make a difference. Those that do, love the status quo because it is what feeds them.
American apathy is entirely understandable and just as valid a political statement as anything else.
Do you think serfs cared much whether the lord that exploited them said nice things while he was taking the fruits of their labor for his own coffers, and the fruits of their loins for his army?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:24PM (10 children)
Thanks Fusta. It is never going to happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @10:55PM (9 children)
You've mistaken me for Fusty the Moron. Which should make me quite angry, as I find his puerile bullshit quite disgusting.
It's also kind of annoying since I'm the one who usually calls him out on his disingenuous bullshit.
You can disbelieve me if you like, but go back and read my post.
Did I claim that both parties are identical? No.
Did I claim that *every* politician is corrupt? No.
Did I suggest that every elected official should be thrown out? No.
What's more, when Fusty uses ACs as his sockpuppets, he *usually* trots out lies and bullshit about the Democrats and occasionally lets on that he *loves* the taste of Trump© cock.
What was it, in a nutshell, that I said? I said that many or most the 43% of eligible voters who didn't vote in 2016 were "dumb as a box of rocks."
I then amended that statement [soylentnews.org] to say:
I'll get even more specific and say that I actually don't care who people vote for. I have my own preferences, of course. I voted for the most qualified candidate in the 2016 presidential election, and will do so again in 2020. If that's not clear enough, I'll say that a poorly trained chimpanzee would make a better president than our jackass-in-chief.
If we wish our system of government to work, we need to participate in that system. For citizens that means *voting*. If you don't vote, as I said, you're implicitly supporting the status quo.
I'll also say that it's even *more* important to vote in state, and especially local, elections than for national ones. Because that's where *most* of the laws that directly impact you will be made and enforced. What's more, given the smaller pool of voters in such elections, your vote can have more impact.
If you're an eligible voter, get your ass out there and *vote*! I don't even care who you vote for. If you don't you're both abdicating an important responsibility of citizenship and cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Want a robust and viable political system? don't throw up your hands and say "it doesn't matter." Because it does matter. Vote!
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:41PM (8 children)
You've inferred that the 43% of people who don't vote don't vote because they're woefully uninformed, ignorant and/or dumb as a box of rocks*, but that's not true of all of them.
I am sure that many of them don't vote because they've been gerrymandered to the point where their vote wouldn't matter so they don't bother, which is rational.
That's why North Carolina votes roughly 54% Republican, but Republicans win 10 out of 13 districts. Any Democrat voters living in the 10 Republican districts are wasting their time voting, and they know it.
That, of course is repeated across the US almost everywhere.
Anyone who doesn't want to vote Republican or Democrat is of course wasting their time voting regardless of where they live, because third party candidates almost never win, but that's baked into your electoral system and voting is not going to change it.
Apologies for confusing you with Fusty.
* Some of them of course are woefully uninformed, ignorant and/or dumb as a box of rocks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:57PM (6 children)
Right. And how do we fix that? Wait for it...by *voting*. Shocking, isn't it?
If you can't get enough elected state officials to pass legislation requiring non-partisan district drawing, then pass it as a ballot measure.
I'm being snarky, but I'm not trying to be nasty here. You bring up important issues that require our attention. And there are methods to address those issues. But every single method requires political participation, not least of which is *voting*.
Excusing those who don't vote by saying "they believe their votes don't count. And they don't" is wrong on its face.
If the folks among that 43% who feel that way were to join with the 57% who do vote, we could transform our political system to be fairer and more responsive to the needs of the electorate.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday June 19 2020, @12:23AM
Why would voting make a difference when both of your two parties prefer the current system?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @01:55AM (4 children)
Hence " It is never going to happen." Because it is not allowed to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @02:21AM (3 children)
You're right. Those elderly latinas who work my polling site will beat me half to death before they let me vote.
That's why I always bring my knife.
tl;dr: WTF are you going on about?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @02:42AM (2 children)
I'm not going on about anything, this is my second and last message on the thread.
As for the "WTF": it's naive to expect to win a game by following rules that are bent so that you can't win (e.g gerrymandering)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @07:15AM (1 child)
Oh, I'm not naive. I am, however, optimistic and believe that Americans can fix what's broken. There's a difference.
There are a number of issues which negatively impact our political and electoral systems. Resolving them won't necessarily be easy. However, one of the nice things about the US is that each state manages its own elections.
That means we can try different stuff in different places and, hopefully, adopt what works.
You brought up gerrymandering. Would it surprise you to know that ten states *already* have non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions [ballotpedia.org]?
Or that 18 states and many municipalities have publicly funded elections [wikipedia.org]?
What's more, many places have adopted Ranked Choice Voting in primary and general elections [ballotpedia.org]
These changes are taking hold in many places. And since each state conducts its own elections, they can try lots of of different things.
The caveat is that this stuff can't happen unless Americans *vote* for it. Where they've had the chance to do so, they often have too.
Which is why the point of my initial post [soylentnews.org] was that 43% of eligible voters simply *did not vote* in 2016. If those people vote too, we can create an electoral system that incentivizes, or at least doesn't penalize, those who want to make their town/state/district/nation a better place, over those who cravenly kowtow to the special interests.
I never once said that positive change would be easy. Nor did I say there won't be significant resistance to such change.
Many of the issues we have with elections *must* be addressed at the state and local levels. That requires people everywhere to get involved.
Which is why I don't even care who people for *for*. If they are involved enough to vote, they have better visibility into the mechanisms of US democracy. And even if that means they vote for someone I don't like, I'd rather have them do that than just assume there's no point and not vote.
Because as Americans, we *mostly* want the same things, no matter what a small bunch of shrill, whiny little bitches on twitter blather on about -- especially because most of them only do so to profit from feeding the outrage machine rather than any principled beliefs.
The problem is that half of the electorate doesn't bother -- and that's one of the first issues we need to address.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @09:38AM
Go for it, both PartTimeZombie (hailing from NZ) and myself (hailing from Australia) are rooting for you, mate. Seriously.
But, speaking for myself, I'm waiting for such a long time I grew old, my apologies if I'm not gonna hold my breath. The more the time passes, the more alien USofA looks from outside. To the point Aussies agree with Planet America [wikipedia.org] as an aptly name for a "US news and political analysis" weekly program
Pedantically speaking, it wasn't me, but doesn't matter, I agree with it.
Well, congrats, all I can say is "hurry up, guys". That's 20% with 80% more to go.
Put the election in a Saturday and make voting compulsory. Australia is doing it since 1920 [sbs.com.au] for this very reason: to address the decline in voter turnout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @12:07AM
I forgot to include this in my earlier reply. Sorry for the second post.
Actually, that's not necessarily true. Given that only 57% voted in the 2016 presidential election, and Clinton received ~48% of that 57% (about 27% of the total electorate) and Trump received 46% of that 57% (about 26% of the total electorate), a third-party candidate who garnered a significant chunk of those who didn't vote could have beaten both of them.
As such, those folks who didn't vote because they think it doesn't matter are *wrong*.
Want a better political system? Want better governance? Then vote. If you don't, you're implicitly saying that you like things just fine the way they are.