3 ms·

I read a bunch of the posts that are still accessible, I still think it makes the point: it's not surprising that Wheeler is reasonably pro-consumer. It's just

I read a bunch of the posts that are still accessible, I still think it makes the point: it's not surprising that Wheeler is reasonably pro-consumer. It's just that I can't find the particular post that has stuck in my head all this time.

justratsinacoat 10y ago
I'm shocked that Wheeler's pro-consumer leanings are so obvious to everyone but me. I wonder if we're reading the same archived blog?
- dsharlet 10y ago
  Would you still say this: > I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or, for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise. After reading this[1], written by Wheeler? > Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes. Many of the Old Guard, launch system contractors, and their congressional supporters are bemoaning the thought of a competitive manned launch environment. We’ve heard all that before at the time of another “analog-to-digital” conversion. The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded. Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) but I also definitely do not think that the vitriol directed at him starting the day of his nomination was warranted, and I do not think that Wheeler's behavior was so unpredictable. 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_05_01_archive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilem...
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    Uh, yeah, totally! Note the language used in your excerpt -- it's all finance and macro-scale consequences, job loss and less expensive services and economic growth. He talks about NASA trying to import "Internet age" thinking (by which he means, of course, entrepreneurship and disruption) into an analog world. Read some of the other posts and they're awash with the same language. >Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? No, not at all! The position I've been trying to take throughout this thread is that the perception of Wheeler being an ascended lobbyist (read: hostile to consumer interests) was reasonable, in the absence of mainstream knowledge otherwise (like eg this blog we're discussing). After reading the post from which you've excerpted, I still think that perception holds. He's not pro-consumer, he's pro-capitalist. Just because the view espoused here ("established corps should not have the ability to extinguish potential competition, via regulation or fearmongering or citing national security") happens to benefit consumers does not mean he's taking those actions for consumer benefit. >Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) Really? I think I've established myself as a fellow sentient, but whatever, maan.

justratsinacoat 10y ago

I'm shocked that Wheeler's pro-consumer leanings are so obvious to everyone but me. I wonder if we're reading the same archived blog?

dsharlet 10y ago
Would you still say this: > I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or, for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise. After reading this[1], written by Wheeler? > Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes. Many of the Old Guard, launch system contractors, and their congressional supporters are bemoaning the thought of a competitive manned launch environment. We’ve heard all that before at the time of another “analog-to-digital” conversion. The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded. Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) but I also definitely do not think that the vitriol directed at him starting the day of his nomination was warranted, and I do not think that Wheeler's behavior was so unpredictable. 1. http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_05_01_archive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilem...
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  Uh, yeah, totally! Note the language used in your excerpt -- it's all finance and macro-scale consequences, job loss and less expensive services and economic growth. He talks about NASA trying to import "Internet age" thinking (by which he means, of course, entrepreneurship and disruption) into an analog world. Read some of the other posts and they're awash with the same language. >Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality? No, not at all! The position I've been trying to take throughout this thread is that the perception of Wheeler being an ascended lobbyist (read: hostile to consumer interests) was reasonable, in the absence of mainstream knowledge otherwise (like eg this blog we're discussing). After reading the post from which you've excerpted, I still think that perception holds. He's not pro-consumer, he's pro-capitalist. Just because the view espoused here ("established corps should not have the ability to extinguish potential competition, via regulation or fearmongering or citing national security") happens to benefit consumers does not mean he's taking those actions for consumer benefit. >Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy on long-winded metaphors...) Really? I think I've established myself as a fellow sentient, but whatever, maan.