9 ms·

The FCC should be disbanded and replaced with a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). Even though t

The FCC should be disbanded and replaced with a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). Even though they could do good, and may have in the past, the lack of actual accountability for their actions means that it's too easy to do bad. They're not directly elected, so even the tiny shred of accountability that elected officials generally have is not there. If they can flat out lie to the public and get away with it, why do they exist and why should they continue to exist? The justification for the existence of a government organization should not be based on the possibilities of good they might do, but it should be based on the unchecked bad they could (and will eventually) do.

monocasa 8y ago
Don't fall into their trap of "look how terrible government is (when officials are actively trying to run it into the ground)". Fix the issues with officials lying, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- xmichael999 8y ago
  This is a well run plan by many powerful figures. Steve Bannon has given many presentations about how appointing "idiots" to run the government is the best way to achieve a shrunken smaller more libertarian government. Sadly I think this plan is somewhat being hijacked to distract from the various other issues with the republican party and Trump.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  How do you propose we fix the government when the government is trying to run the government into the ground and the only way to fix it is through the government? > Fix the issues with officials lying The only way to do that is by either 1: prosecuting them or 2: disbanding the FCC and forming a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). I was advocating for #2. #1 is largely a joke when targeting high ranking officials.
  - skywhopper 8y ago
    Electing the FCC makes no sense. The rules are set by Congress, who we do elect. The FCC interprets and enforces those rules, but if they make poor decisions, Congress can change the rules.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      To pile onto this comment, the Republicans in Congress can join the Democrats any time they want to and ensgrine net neutrality as the law of the land.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    What's wrong with prosecuting public officials who lie to the public? Make all official statements de facto under oath.
    - jack9 8y ago
      The futility of trying to equivocate truth was illustrated by the Clinton trial, or taking any community college philosophy class.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
        And yet, trials exist.
        jack9 8y ago
        With predictable outcomes. Liars avoid prosecution and weasel out of consequence, even with dedicated decisioning.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    This is why I prefer direct democracy and polling about policies to voting for representatives. Actual statistical sampling can be applied instead of a bunch of crap, gerrymandering and lobbying.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  FCC does nothing that citizens need or want done. For it to be shuttered would harm only those who have invested billions in the fake "assets" that FCC invented and must constantly police. It isn't the 1930s anymore. Modern radio technology could enable a much more complete utilization of spectrum. FCC's primary mission at this time is to delay that happy day as long as possible. "Happy" because with true competition, the consumer would forget that net neutrality was ever anything a government agency needed to enforce. Don't like how your WISP is handling your traffic? Just switch to one of the other 25 WISPs in your area. It's true that if FCC were eliminated to the general benefit of the nation, curious citizens would wonder what else could be eliminated. Should we feel sorry for any organization unable to justify its own purpose and actions?
  - monocasa 8y ago
    I think you're underestimating how constrained the radio spectrum actually is. There's not enough room for 25 WISPs.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      I can see (and, with the right tools, connect to) more than 25 WiFi APs from my office. The reason "there isn't enough room" in other bands is because we haven't really tried. Developing the tech is expensive, so investors will be sure there is an application before investing. In Wifi, a tiny sliver of "whoops why the hell did we leave that open oh yeah microwave ovens damn that's inconvenient" spectrum that no one who could get a meeting with FCC wanted, lots of wonderful and unpredicted things have happened. It seems we get another 802.11 letter every couple of years now. Those engineers don't need supervision from the feds. They wouldn't need supervision on a larger chunk of spectrum either.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        Intentional transmitters are very heavily regulated, even in the 2.4GHz band.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
skywhopper 8y ago
How is no FCC better than the current FCC? How would you propose we regulate the use of radio bandwidth? Cell phones, wifi, bluetooth, all would be impossible without the FCC. Net neutrality can never be enforced by a non-existing entity. Congress ultimately has the final say over what the FCC may or may not decide. The accountability is there. If the current rules are broken, that's a problem to fix, not to give up on.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > Cell phones, wifi, bluetooth, all would be impossible without the FCC It sounds like you need to read up on the vast regulatory difference between cell bands and wifi. edit: I can't fathom why I'm being downvoted. Without the FCC we would have much faster wifi, not being confined to a few tiny slices of spectrum. But cell service is debatable. And radio astronomy would be fucked.
  - wl 8y ago
    The ISM bands are a shitshow. Some people legitimately need licensed spectrum.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mindslight 8y ago
      I didn't say anything to the contrary. I'd personally like to see a lot more public spectrum (say half of what was reclaimed from that DTV switchover [0]). But I respect there are many applications that do need dedicated spectrum, hence my reference to radio astronomy. Basic emergency comms that want the least possible protocol complexity is another. It's just not a very informed opinion to think the FCC effected wifi/bluetooth, rather than having merely gotten out of the way. [0] Or, if concerned it would merely end up a permanently unusable swamp due to the propagation, at least run an initial experiment with a tiny slice.
      - 8y ago
okintheory 8y ago
Well, regulatory capture is the problem here [1]. The FCC crooks were appointed by elected crooks. If the US didn't elect crooks, we wouldn't have this FCC. Electing crooks, of course, is a very old tradition. When it's blunt, it looks like the Credit Mobilier scandal in 1867 [2]. When it's a little more subtle, it might look like LBJ destroying Leland Olds' reputation to keep him off the Federal Power Commission [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_Americ... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Olds#Unsuccessful_re-nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Olds#Unsuccessful_re-no...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dylan604 8y ago
Everything that you say here about the FCC could also be applied to other agencies. I think what was going on at the EPA was even worse for the simple fact that their regulations can actually have a positive or negative effect on the lives of the citizens it is responsible. While we as internet addicted citizens feel that the network is important, I think it is lower on the list. Not at all trying to diminish the fight against the FCC. I just think the EPA is even more important.
abvdasker 8y ago
Well, Pai was appointed by Trump so in a sense he was chosen by voters, albeit indirectly. If we vote a different president into office then Pai will be replaced. A vote for one party in a race to control the Presidency really is a vote for control of that entire branch, including the officials it appoints. But it's a shame most Americans don't think about politics this way. Ultimately we get the government we deserve.

monocasa 8y ago

Don't fall into their trap of "look how terrible government is (when officials are actively trying to run it into the ground)". Fix the issues with officials lying, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

xmichael999 8y ago
This is a well run plan by many powerful figures. Steve Bannon has given many presentations about how appointing "idiots" to run the government is the best way to achieve a shrunken smaller more libertarian government. Sadly I think this plan is somewhat being hijacked to distract from the various other issues with the republican party and Trump.
craftyguy 8y ago
How do you propose we fix the government when the government is trying to run the government into the ground and the only way to fix it is through the government? > Fix the issues with officials lying The only way to do that is by either 1: prosecuting them or 2: disbanding the FCC and forming a new regulatory body that is elected by the people (either directly or by elected representation). I was advocating for #2. #1 is largely a joke when targeting high ranking officials.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  Electing the FCC makes no sense. The rules are set by Congress, who we do elect. The FCC interprets and enforces those rules, but if they make poor decisions, Congress can change the rules.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    To pile onto this comment, the Republicans in Congress can join the Democrats any time they want to and ensgrine net neutrality as the law of the land.
- monocasa 8y ago
  What's wrong with prosecuting public officials who lie to the public? Make all official statements de facto under oath.
  - jack9 8y ago
    The futility of trying to equivocate truth was illustrated by the Clinton trial, or taking any community college philosophy class.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      And yet, trials exist.
      - jack9 8y ago
        With predictable outcomes. Liars avoid prosecution and weasel out of consequence, even with dedicated decisioning.
- EGreg 8y ago
  This is why I prefer direct democracy and polling about policies to voting for representatives. Actual statistical sampling can be applied instead of a bunch of crap, gerrymandering and lobbying.
jessaustin 8y ago
FCC does nothing that citizens need or want done. For it to be shuttered would harm only those who have invested billions in the fake "assets" that FCC invented and must constantly police. It isn't the 1930s anymore. Modern radio technology could enable a much more complete utilization of spectrum. FCC's primary mission at this time is to delay that happy day as long as possible. "Happy" because with true competition, the consumer would forget that net neutrality was ever anything a government agency needed to enforce. Don't like how your WISP is handling your traffic? Just switch to one of the other 25 WISPs in your area. It's true that if FCC were eliminated to the general benefit of the nation, curious citizens would wonder what else could be eliminated. Should we feel sorry for any organization unable to justify its own purpose and actions?
- monocasa 8y ago
  I think you're underestimating how constrained the radio spectrum actually is. There's not enough room for 25 WISPs.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    I can see (and, with the right tools, connect to) more than 25 WiFi APs from my office. The reason "there isn't enough room" in other bands is because we haven't really tried. Developing the tech is expensive, so investors will be sure there is an application before investing. In Wifi, a tiny sliver of "whoops why the hell did we leave that open oh yeah microwave ovens damn that's inconvenient" spectrum that no one who could get a meeting with FCC wanted, lots of wonderful and unpredicted things have happened. It seems we get another 802.11 letter every couple of years now. Those engineers don't need supervision from the feds. They wouldn't need supervision on a larger chunk of spectrum either.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Intentional transmitters are very heavily regulated, even in the 2.4GHz band.
    - nostrademons 8y ago

skywhopper 8y ago

How is no FCC better than the current FCC? How would you propose we regulate the use of radio bandwidth? Cell phones, wifi, bluetooth, all would be impossible without the FCC. Net neutrality can never be enforced by a non-existing entity. Congress ultimately has the final say over what the FCC may or may not decide. The accountability is there. If the current rules are broken, that's a problem to fix, not to give up on.

mindslight 8y ago
> Cell phones, wifi, bluetooth, all would be impossible without the FCC It sounds like you need to read up on the vast regulatory difference between cell bands and wifi. edit: I can't fathom why I'm being downvoted. Without the FCC we would have much faster wifi, not being confined to a few tiny slices of spectrum. But cell service is debatable. And radio astronomy would be fucked.
- wl 8y ago
  The ISM bands are a shitshow. Some people legitimately need licensed spectrum.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 8y ago
    I didn't say anything to the contrary. I'd personally like to see a lot more public spectrum (say half of what was reclaimed from that DTV switchover [0]). But I respect there are many applications that do need dedicated spectrum, hence my reference to radio astronomy. Basic emergency comms that want the least possible protocol complexity is another. It's just not a very informed opinion to think the FCC effected wifi/bluetooth, rather than having merely gotten out of the way. [0] Or, if concerned it would merely end up a permanently unusable swamp due to the propagation, at least run an initial experiment with a tiny slice.
    - 8y ago

okintheory 8y ago

Well, regulatory capture is the problem here [1]. The FCC crooks were appointed by elected crooks. If the US didn't elect crooks, we wouldn't have this FCC. Electing crooks, of course, is a very old tradition. When it's blunt, it looks like the Credit Mobilier scandal in 1867 [2]. When it's a little more subtle, it might look like LBJ destroying Leland Olds' reputation to keep him off the Federal Power Commission [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_Americ... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Olds#Unsuccessful_re-nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Olds#Unsuccessful_re-no...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dylan604 8y ago

Everything that you say here about the FCC could also be applied to other agencies. I think what was going on at the EPA was even worse for the simple fact that their regulations can actually have a positive or negative effect on the lives of the citizens it is responsible. While we as internet addicted citizens feel that the network is important, I think it is lower on the list. Not at all trying to diminish the fight against the FCC. I just think the EPA is even more important.

abvdasker 8y ago

Well, Pai was appointed by Trump so in a sense he was chosen by voters, albeit indirectly. If we vote a different president into office then Pai will be replaced. A vote for one party in a race to control the Presidency really is a vote for control of that entire branch, including the officials it appoints. But it's a shame most Americans don't think about politics this way. Ultimately we get the government we deserve.