10 ms·

Almost All of FCC’s New Advisory Panel Works for Telecoms

197 points by croon 9y ago

HillaryBriss 9y ago
given that and the relatively hot economy, it's the perfect time to raise broadband rates. open your wallet...
- jandrese 9y ago
  The economy is only hot for people in the stock market or are high up the corporate ladder. The majority is getting left behind yet again so we can shovel ever increasing amounts of money at the rich.
solotronics 9y ago
This is a perfect example of how the silicon valley echo chamber can have implications in DC. We all want cheap, fast, and open internet. Instead of the right people advising the current administration I feel like the polarization politics recently in the US is contributing to these advisors being picked. For example if the elites in silicon valley presented themselves publicly as more moderate and impartial they would have more say in the current admin. Its a bad idea to alienate yourself from half of the country no matter which side you are on.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Isn't this just the result of Republican policy? Enabling regulatory capture? The official GOP stance is that industry can police itself, right? Seems pretty simple.
  - redler 9y ago
    It happens when either major party is in control, but you're right: the Democrats lean toward more active regulation to shape outcomes in ways that often don't benefit dominant players, while the GOP aims to erase regulation, often bluntly, and leave outcomes to the markets. As a practical matter, "markets" means "dominant players in the market". The GOP view on regulatory agencies is that they should look more like chambers of commerce, and as such, they end up stocked with representatives of those dominant players.
- danharaj 9y ago
  Economic interests drive ideology, not the other way around.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    The past 50 years of the Republican party counters this. Simply take a look a the core issues the party has support for.
    - Retric 9y ago
      What the Republican party says and what it does are very different. I don't know how intentional this is, but I suspect they want to be able to drum up support next election far more than they want change.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      That doesn't counter it, they believe it is in their economic interest to give the rich large tax cuts because they believe it will result in more jobs, it's the same reason that they oppose net neutrality, environmental regulations and banking regulations: they believe it is in their economic interest.
maxxxxx 9y ago
That's the thing that scares me the most about the current administration. They seem to think that the only players in the economy are businesses, especially big ones. Workers don't count, the environment doesn't count, science that doesn't benefit business doesn't count. I think that's the area where they will do the most long term damage.
- zero_one_one 9y ago
  I don't think it's a case of non-businesses not being listened to, more so the there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the table putting themselves forward for representation. There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. It's purely a side product of democracy - our representatives cannot possibly (or feasibly be expected to) represent the professional or personal interests of each and every working person within their constituency without those interests being put forward ahead of time and chased - hence why the questions go out to those that are 'known to know' for advice. It's human nature - if you know someone who has experience in a domain you're unaware of, you go to them for advice. If the representative doesn't know you have this expertise, they're not going to come to you for advice. We all take for granted that our representatives in government look out for us, however when these initiatives are raised by them, and input is requested, the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups with a cursory or passing interest. They're usually put to those working in the related industry or those who have a stake in the arena, as this is where the expertise is perceived to live, and will generate the quickest consensus on the issue. It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I think with this administration it's more extreme than before. It seems only millionaires, business people or lobbyists are allowed to the table. Scientists and other experts are being treated in a hostile way.
zero_one_one 9y ago
I've been involved in standardisation within my industry for some time, and it's interesting to see how many people representing vendors are able to sway proceedings away from that which is technically neutral (and non-proprietary), to that which is financially beneficial to one or more implementers of the standardisation procedure's results. I see the same thing in play here - the airwaves are being treated like tracts of land, and those who currently own the larger tracts don't want anyone using the smaller plots of no-man's land on their borders, in case there are accidental (or otherwise) trespasses onto 'owned territory', so to speak. I'm not advocating one way or another (if you own something, it's yours, clean and fair), but it's interesting to see how an invisible physical space is being monetized so aggressively.
carrja99 9y ago
FCC is now a Captured Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)
- wodencafe 9y ago
  I had never heard of this until now, thanks! Now the tougher question, what can we do about it?
  - afarrell 9y ago
    The difficult thing is finding people who are highly knowledgeable about the telecom industry who are not in the employ of the telecom industry and don't hope to be.
  - nobodyorother 9y ago
    Publicly funded elections that invalidate capture; follow Larry Lessig.
  - megiddo 9y ago
    Nothing really. The agency is acting as intended, namely as a regulatory body serving the interests of the major industry players at the expense of minor operators and customers. The best solution is to simply eliminate the agency.
    - wfo 9y ago
      And since the only ostensibly pro-consumer voice with any power (the FCC) is acting in the interest of major industry players right now, we should give the major industry players complete control forever, even if a pro-consumer administration takes power sometime in the future?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Tom Wheeler was a former telecom executive [1]. His perspective as a telecom entrepreneur informed his tenure at the FCC. Not saying this is fine, but it's not an automatic red flag. Just a reminder to remain vigilant. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
- ahoy 9y ago
  Regulatory Capture/Agency Capture is a real problem. On the one hand, it's often the case that people with deep ties to a regulated industry are the ones who understand it best. On the other hand, they're the people most likely to financially benefit from poor regulatory practices.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Which is why corporate Boards and regulatory commissions should have a mix of insiders and outsiders.
rayiner 9y ago
The question is: what problems does this advisory panel need to help solve? The prevailing view on HN seems to be that the system is broken top-down. That's just factually untrue. The U.S. just moved into the top 10 in Akamai's testing in terms of average broadband speeds: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... (Figure 6). It ranks 8 in connections above 15 mbps (Figure 10). As much as it pains anti-deregulation folks to admit, the status quo under the 1996 Telecom Act has worked pretty well. Instead, the problem in broadband right now is state and local governments. Why does Silicon Valley have such limited broadband options while Austin, Atlanta, even exurban Maryland have multiple fiber options? The answer is that the same NIMBY local governments that stand in the way of transit development and new housing development also stand in the way of broadband deployment. See, e.g. San Francisco's opposition to fiber deployment: https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-pu.... Obviously, the FCC needs to prevent abuse. I think it could do a lot more in terms of preempting state/local laws against municipal broadband, or things like the West Virginia law that makes pole attachments harder. But for better or worse, U.S. policy at almost all levels is to have broadband infrastructure built with private rather than public capital. As long as that's true, pushing for increased antagonism from the regulator might feel good, but it's probably going to hurt, not help.
- wfo 9y ago
  I agree, ignoring the serious problem that is a tiny number of private monopolies owning all of our communication infrastructure (boy, 1996 me hopes those oligarchs don't choose to compromise the privacy or rights of their customers, since we have no other viable options....) the current state of affairs is really not too bad in that a whole bunch of people can get reasonably fast service at reasonable prices. As far as I know concerns people have with the telecommunications act of 1996 are very serious but they concern primarily media/press consolidation, and allowing for vertical integration, since it provides dangerous incentives for companies to violate net neutrality. And of course people have problems in general with massive consolidation of private power over critical communication infrastructure (see previous paragraph) but I didn't realize there was any worry that it would make things much worse when it comes to "what kind of service can the consumer buy" efficiency related issues.
ancap 9y ago
This is the legacy of the progressive movement--namely that experts, with domain specific knowledge, should be put in charge of running bureaucracy and creating regulations.
colordrops 9y ago
Isn'r regulatory capture the status quo in Washington? This isn't out of character with past appointments of any sort.
sitkack 9y ago
Where is the swamp draining?
megiddo 9y ago
Regulatory Capture. The FCC is staffer by special interests in the same way as the SEC or the Fed, or the Texas Railroad Commission. The purpose of a regulatory committee is to be the creature of a specific industry. Kolko gives a history of the regulatory movement and it's role in "The Triumph of the New Conservatism". It is a must-read foranyone dealing with a regulatory body.
rdxm 9y ago
I am shocked, shocked! to find out there is gambling going on in Casablanca.....

197 points by croon 9y ago

HillaryBriss 9y ago

given that and the relatively hot economy, it's the perfect time to raise broadband rates. open your wallet...

jandrese 9y ago
The economy is only hot for people in the stock market or are high up the corporate ladder. The majority is getting left behind yet again so we can shovel ever increasing amounts of money at the rich.

solotronics 9y ago

This is a perfect example of how the silicon valley echo chamber can have implications in DC. We all want cheap, fast, and open internet. Instead of the right people advising the current administration I feel like the polarization politics recently in the US is contributing to these advisors being picked. For example if the elites in silicon valley presented themselves publicly as more moderate and impartial they would have more say in the current admin. Its a bad idea to alienate yourself from half of the country no matter which side you are on.

wavefunction 9y ago
Isn't this just the result of Republican policy? Enabling regulatory capture? The official GOP stance is that industry can police itself, right? Seems pretty simple.
- redler 9y ago
  It happens when either major party is in control, but you're right: the Democrats lean toward more active regulation to shape outcomes in ways that often don't benefit dominant players, while the GOP aims to erase regulation, often bluntly, and leave outcomes to the markets. As a practical matter, "markets" means "dominant players in the market". The GOP view on regulatory agencies is that they should look more like chambers of commerce, and as such, they end up stocked with representatives of those dominant players.
danharaj 9y ago
Economic interests drive ideology, not the other way around.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  The past 50 years of the Republican party counters this. Simply take a look a the core issues the party has support for.
  - Retric 9y ago
    What the Republican party says and what it does are very different. I don't know how intentional this is, but I suspect they want to be able to drum up support next election far more than they want change.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    That doesn't counter it, they believe it is in their economic interest to give the rich large tax cuts because they believe it will result in more jobs, it's the same reason that they oppose net neutrality, environmental regulations and banking regulations: they believe it is in their economic interest.

maxxxxx 9y ago

That's the thing that scares me the most about the current administration. They seem to think that the only players in the economy are businesses, especially big ones. Workers don't count, the environment doesn't count, science that doesn't benefit business doesn't count. I think that's the area where they will do the most long term damage.

zero_one_one 9y ago
I don't think it's a case of non-businesses not being listened to, more so the there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at the table putting themselves forward for representation. There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. It's purely a side product of democracy - our representatives cannot possibly (or feasibly be expected to) represent the professional or personal interests of each and every working person within their constituency without those interests being put forward ahead of time and chased - hence why the questions go out to those that are 'known to know' for advice. It's human nature - if you know someone who has experience in a domain you're unaware of, you go to them for advice. If the representative doesn't know you have this expertise, they're not going to come to you for advice. We all take for granted that our representatives in government look out for us, however when these initiatives are raised by them, and input is requested, the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups with a cursory or passing interest. They're usually put to those working in the related industry or those who have a stake in the arena, as this is where the expertise is perceived to live, and will generate the quickest consensus on the issue. It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think with this administration it's more extreme than before. It seems only millionaires, business people or lobbyists are allowed to the table. Scientists and other experts are being treated in a hostile way.

zero_one_one 9y ago

I've been involved in standardisation within my industry for some time, and it's interesting to see how many people representing vendors are able to sway proceedings away from that which is technically neutral (and non-proprietary), to that which is financially beneficial to one or more implementers of the standardisation procedure's results. I see the same thing in play here - the airwaves are being treated like tracts of land, and those who currently own the larger tracts don't want anyone using the smaller plots of no-man's land on their borders, in case there are accidental (or otherwise) trespasses onto 'owned territory', so to speak. I'm not advocating one way or another (if you own something, it's yours, clean and fair), but it's interesting to see how an invisible physical space is being monetized so aggressively.

carrja99 9y ago

FCC is now a Captured Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

wodencafe 9y ago
I had never heard of this until now, thanks! Now the tougher question, what can we do about it?
- afarrell 9y ago
  The difficult thing is finding people who are highly knowledgeable about the telecom industry who are not in the employ of the telecom industry and don't hope to be.
- nobodyorother 9y ago
  Publicly funded elections that invalidate capture; follow Larry Lessig.
- megiddo 9y ago
  Nothing really. The agency is acting as intended, namely as a regulatory body serving the interests of the major industry players at the expense of minor operators and customers. The best solution is to simply eliminate the agency.
  - wfo 9y ago
    And since the only ostensibly pro-consumer voice with any power (the FCC) is acting in the interest of major industry players right now, we should give the major industry players complete control forever, even if a pro-consumer administration takes power sometime in the future?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Tom Wheeler was a former telecom executive [1]. His perspective as a telecom entrepreneur informed his tenure at the FCC. Not saying this is fine, but it's not an automatic red flag. Just a reminder to remain vigilant. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

ahoy 9y ago
Regulatory Capture/Agency Capture is a real problem. On the one hand, it's often the case that people with deep ties to a regulated industry are the ones who understand it best. On the other hand, they're the people most likely to financially benefit from poor regulatory practices.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Which is why corporate Boards and regulatory commissions should have a mix of insiders and outsiders.

rayiner 9y ago

The question is: what problems does this advisory panel need to help solve? The prevailing view on HN seems to be that the system is broken top-down. That's just factually untrue. The U.S. just moved into the top 10 in Akamai's testing in terms of average broadband speeds: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t... (Figure 6). It ranks 8 in connections above 15 mbps (Figure 10). As much as it pains anti-deregulation folks to admit, the status quo under the 1996 Telecom Act has worked pretty well. Instead, the problem in broadband right now is state and local governments. Why does Silicon Valley have such limited broadband options while Austin, Atlanta, even exurban Maryland have multiple fiber options? The answer is that the same NIMBY local governments that stand in the way of transit development and new housing development also stand in the way of broadband deployment. See, e.g. San Francisco's opposition to fiber deployment: https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-where https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-pu.... Obviously, the FCC needs to prevent abuse. I think it could do a lot more in terms of preempting state/local laws against municipal broadband, or things like the West Virginia law that makes pole attachments harder. But for better or worse, U.S. policy at almost all levels is to have broadband infrastructure built with private rather than public capital. As long as that's true, pushing for increased antagonism from the regulator might feel good, but it's probably going to hurt, not help.

wfo 9y ago
I agree, ignoring the serious problem that is a tiny number of private monopolies owning all of our communication infrastructure (boy, 1996 me hopes those oligarchs don't choose to compromise the privacy or rights of their customers, since we have no other viable options....) the current state of affairs is really not too bad in that a whole bunch of people can get reasonably fast service at reasonable prices. As far as I know concerns people have with the telecommunications act of 1996 are very serious but they concern primarily media/press consolidation, and allowing for vertical integration, since it provides dangerous incentives for companies to violate net neutrality. And of course people have problems in general with massive consolidation of private power over critical communication infrastructure (see previous paragraph) but I didn't realize there was any worry that it would make things much worse when it comes to "what kind of service can the consumer buy" efficiency related issues.

ancap 9y ago

This is the legacy of the progressive movement--namely that experts, with domain specific knowledge, should be put in charge of running bureaucracy and creating regulations.

colordrops 9y ago

Isn'r regulatory capture the status quo in Washington? This isn't out of character with past appointments of any sort.

sitkack 9y ago

Where is the swamp draining?

megiddo 9y ago

Regulatory Capture. The FCC is staffer by special interests in the same way as the SEC or the Fed, or the Texas Railroad Commission. The purpose of a regulatory committee is to be the creature of a specific industry. Kolko gives a history of the regulatory movement and it's role in "The Triumph of the New Conservatism". It is a must-read foranyone dealing with a regulatory body.

rdxm 9y ago

I am shocked, shocked! to find out there is gambling going on in Casablanca.....