4 ms·

Admitted that the erratic nature of the new administration makes it tricky to anticipate what tack (if any) Pai's FCC will take. However, the progress thus far

Admitted that the erratic nature of the new administration makes it tricky to anticipate what tack (if any) Pai's FCC will take. However, the progress thus far in enormous telco mergers, Charter/TimeWarner/Verizon in particular, doesn't suggest an incoming regulatory environment that will benefit end users much.

maxxxxx 10y ago
Whatever I have seen is they are keen on removing any kind of regulation so I would expect they believe abandoning net neutrality will benefit end users by increasing choice. They just argued that requiring retirement advisers to work in the interest of the people they are advising is bad for the end user.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  That's a pretty bad framing. The argument against the fiduciary rule is that it will decrease access to advisers, which is what in fact happened in Britain, see e.g. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-dol-s-fiduciary-rule-what-we-can-learn-from-the-u-k https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-... or http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-explained http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-... The question is whether the harm caused by the decreased access is worse than the harm caused by conflicted advice, which is by no means an easy question to answer.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    What good is advice that is not in the interest of the advised? Maybe we should lower ethical standards for doctors too so people have more access to doctors no matter what their real motivation is.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      The question is whether some advice is better than no advice. There are arguments on both sides. See e.g. https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fix-financial-advisors/ https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fi...
      - maxxxxx 10y ago
        I will vote for no advice. It's too easy to exploit this.

maxxxxx 10y ago

Whatever I have seen is they are keen on removing any kind of regulation so I would expect they believe abandoning net neutrality will benefit end users by increasing choice. They just argued that requiring retirement advisers to work in the interest of the people they are advising is bad for the end user.

ikeboy 10y ago
That's a pretty bad framing. The argument against the fiduciary rule is that it will decrease access to advisers, which is what in fact happened in Britain, see e.g. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-dol-s-fiduciary-rule-what-we-can-learn-from-the-u-k https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-... or http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-explained http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-... The question is whether the harm caused by the decreased access is worse than the harm caused by conflicted advice, which is by no means an easy question to answer.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  What good is advice that is not in the interest of the advised? Maybe we should lower ethical standards for doctors too so people have more access to doctors no matter what their real motivation is.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    The question is whether some advice is better than no advice. There are arguments on both sides. See e.g. https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fix-financial-advisors/ https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fi...
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      I will vote for no advice. It's too easy to exploit this.