5 ms·

> He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatso

> He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatsoever. Looks like it. It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure. Also, we really need to look into how government and regulation works in this country. What's the point of having a regulatory system for industries if the officials of companies in these industry lead the governmental/regulatory agencies? If former goldman sachs officials run financial agencies and if a former verizon official runs the FCC, what's the point of these agencies?

betterunix2 9y ago
There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencies; in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). The problem with this proceeding is that it is based only on industry comments and ignores other voices, which is the worst way to create regulation. Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.
- ajnin 9y ago
  Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest. Taking inputs from various parties, including the industry and the general public, to then make an informed decision about the best course of action in the general interest, is a completely different thing.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    "Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest." Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc. Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with. In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      > Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers? I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective. I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.
- setecgastronomy 9y ago
  > There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case. > in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    If you committed a crime and your mother was on the case, that would be a conflict of interest since your mother has vested interest in you. If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company. If they do, then there would be a conflict of interest.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      I get the argument about the ex-Verizon employee - the much bigger conflict of interest is that such a person is a future-Verizon employee, as the fate of other such officials in e.g. finance sector illustrates; we get regulatory capture because the industry lobbyists promise and hand out lucrative deals to individual regulators after their term is done.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Employees do have an interest in their old companies. If nothing else working for successful companies is a good sign on a resume. But, high level employees often have close ties to other people in management and a much easier time being brought back.
    - charred_toast 9y ago
shmerl 9y ago
> It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure. It actually could be expected. He is not an elected official, so he can easily do the bidding of corporate masters, instead of serving the public, especially if he feels that legislative power is too dysfunctional to do anything about it. It can happen even with elected officials, even more so with appointed ones.
- chrischen 9y ago
  Corporate masters implies he’s still under the employ and compensation of Verizon. If Verizon is bribing him, they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so. They can just invest in PACs or lobbyists, or even straight up bribe any elected official.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    > under the employ and compensation of Verizon Not necessarily direct employ, but serving their interest. They wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly employ him. > they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so It was the path of least resistance for them. He was already in the FCC, and he was always backing the interests of ISP incumbents against the public, if you paid attention.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  We understand his broken incentives and allegiances. But most people have at least a small amount of allegiance to and empathy with the general population. Perhaps they won't necessarily listen if the opposition is weak, or if they think they can get away with it. But Pai has tens of millions of people vehemently opposing him. He is probably recieving jeers and hate mail and rude gestures every time he goes out in public. And people have even started harassing his family - at what point does the money cease to be worth it? Most people would have given up under a hundredth of that backlash.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    One of the dirtiest aspects I've seen in this whole NN debate has been the very ugly behavior of NN proponents. That, as much as anything, has eliminated any support I might have had for NN. Pai digs in and fights back against racist death threats? Good for him. Shame on anyone expecting him to back down in the face of that.
chrischen 9y ago
A former Verizon employee probably has no more ties or vested interests in Verizon anymore. If they have stock or other interests then they shouldn’t be in those regulatory offices.
- jeron 9y ago
  while the president's sons run his company and the president's daughter has an office in the White House ethics have gone out the window for this presidency, shouldn't doesn't matter anymore
- tyingq 9y ago
  The quid pro quo usually comes later, after they leave their government post. In the form of board seats or high level positions in the companies that benefited. So, hard to police since the payoff is down the road.
tzs 9y ago
Generally, you want someone who is a legal/policy nerd for the regulated industry to head that industry's regulatory agency. For most industries, the only people who are interested enough to become legal/policy nerds are either people who work in the industry in legal/policy executive positions, or a small number of academics who specialize in those industries. The academics are usually a little too theoretical to deal with actually running an agency, and so that pretty much just leaves people from the industry.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Nothing happens in a vacuum so even telecom regulation has impacts outside the telco industry. For this reason I do not think first hand experience is that important in regulating an industry. I would much rather see someone with a history of balancing competing interests in charge rather than someone with a strong bias.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

betterunix2 9y ago

There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencies; in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). The problem with this proceeding is that it is based only on industry comments and ignores other voices, which is the worst way to create regulation. Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.

ajnin 9y ago
Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest. Taking inputs from various parties, including the industry and the general public, to then make an informed decision about the best course of action in the general interest, is a completely different thing.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  "Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest." Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc. Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with. In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    > Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers? I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective. I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.
setecgastronomy 9y ago
> There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case. > in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.
- chrischen 9y ago
  If you committed a crime and your mother was on the case, that would be a conflict of interest since your mother has vested interest in you. If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company. If they do, then there would be a conflict of interest.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    I get the argument about the ex-Verizon employee - the much bigger conflict of interest is that such a person is a future-Verizon employee, as the fate of other such officials in e.g. finance sector illustrates; we get regulatory capture because the industry lobbyists promise and hand out lucrative deals to individual regulators after their term is done.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Employees do have an interest in their old companies. If nothing else working for successful companies is a good sign on a resume. But, high level employees often have close ties to other people in management and a much easier time being brought back.
  - charred_toast 9y ago

shmerl 9y ago

> It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure. It actually could be expected. He is not an elected official, so he can easily do the bidding of corporate masters, instead of serving the public, especially if he feels that legislative power is too dysfunctional to do anything about it. It can happen even with elected officials, even more so with appointed ones.

chrischen 9y ago
Corporate masters implies he’s still under the employ and compensation of Verizon. If Verizon is bribing him, they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so. They can just invest in PACs or lobbyists, or even straight up bribe any elected official.
- shmerl 9y ago
  > under the employ and compensation of Verizon Not necessarily direct employ, but serving their interest. They wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly employ him. > they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so It was the path of least resistance for them. He was already in the FCC, and he was always backing the interests of ISP incumbents against the public, if you paid attention.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
We understand his broken incentives and allegiances. But most people have at least a small amount of allegiance to and empathy with the general population. Perhaps they won't necessarily listen if the opposition is weak, or if they think they can get away with it. But Pai has tens of millions of people vehemently opposing him. He is probably recieving jeers and hate mail and rude gestures every time he goes out in public. And people have even started harassing his family - at what point does the money cease to be worth it? Most people would have given up under a hundredth of that backlash.
- danjoc 9y ago
  One of the dirtiest aspects I've seen in this whole NN debate has been the very ugly behavior of NN proponents. That, as much as anything, has eliminated any support I might have had for NN. Pai digs in and fights back against racist death threats? Good for him. Shame on anyone expecting him to back down in the face of that.

chrischen 9y ago

A former Verizon employee probably has no more ties or vested interests in Verizon anymore. If they have stock or other interests then they shouldn’t be in those regulatory offices.

jeron 9y ago
while the president's sons run his company and the president's daughter has an office in the White House ethics have gone out the window for this presidency, shouldn't doesn't matter anymore
tyingq 9y ago
The quid pro quo usually comes later, after they leave their government post. In the form of board seats or high level positions in the companies that benefited. So, hard to police since the payoff is down the road.

tzs 9y ago

Generally, you want someone who is a legal/policy nerd for the regulated industry to head that industry's regulatory agency. For most industries, the only people who are interested enough to become legal/policy nerds are either people who work in the industry in legal/policy executive positions, or a small number of academics who specialize in those industries. The academics are usually a little too theoretical to deal with actually running an agency, and so that pretty much just leaves people from the industry.

mulmen 9y ago
Nothing happens in a vacuum so even telecom regulation has impacts outside the telco industry. For this reason I do not think first hand experience is that important in regulating an industry. I would much rather see someone with a history of balancing competing interests in charge rather than someone with a strong bias.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]