FCC Abides By GOP Request To Stop What It's Doing, Deletes Everything From Meeting Agenda (arstechnica.com) 119
One day after republicans from the house and senate sent letters to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, urging him to avoid passing regulations before Donald Trump's inauguration as president, Wheeler appears to have complied with the request. The FCC today "announced the deletion of all items that were originally scheduled to be presented and voted on at tomorrow's meeting." Ars Technica reports: Before the change, the agenda included votes on price caps for "special access" business data services; Universal Service funding to expand mobile broadband networks; wireless roaming obligations; and requirements for audio description of TV programming for blind and visually impaired people. The only item not deleted from tomorrow's meeting is part of the "consent agenda," which means it is routine and wasn't going to be presented individually. Of the major items, the business data services proposal had received the most attention. These are dedicated wireline circuits provided by traditional phone companies like AT&T and Verizon; the services supply bandwidth for cellular data networks, indirectly affecting the price consumers pay for wireless service. The business data services are also used by banks and retailers to connect ATM machines and credit card readers, by government and corporate users to connect branch offices and data centers, and to support public safety operations and health care facilities. The now-deleted agenda item would have phased in price cap decreases of 11 percent over three years to account for "over a decade of efficiency gains" since the last price cap adjustment.
Howard Stern (Score:5, Funny)
Trump should appoint Howard Stern as the FCC Chairman.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know. Believe me, I know, right? It's getting to the point where you can't even say embarrassing and quasi-criminal things during a private on-air conversation. Sad!
Re:Howard Stern (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is that modded "funny"? Would be the most rational appointment T's made
Re: (Score:1)
Why is that modded "funny"? Would be the most rational appointment T's made
The sad part is considering how powerful Stern is with his unreleased recordings of Trump. (that apparently no other Stern listener bothered to record and release to journalists during the campaign). Seriously, Stern has some mondo fucking leverage.
WTF are you talking about? (Score:1)
What unreleased recordings? These Trump conversations are not some hidden bomb shells. They were broadcast on a nationally syndicated radio show. I listened to Trump call in plenty of times and talk about women and sex.
Re: (Score:1)
What unreleased recordings? These Trump conversations...
I believe I saw plenty of news that Stern refused requests to release his recordings of these public broadcasts. I saw no reports that anyone, anywhere, had any copies available for journalistic review (in the new context of a presidential campaign).
If you or anyone can provide links to an archive of the audio that I and other journalists can analyze, then I will agree that there are no 'unreleased recordings'.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe I saw plenty of news that Stern refused requests to release his recordings of these public broadcasts.
It is more complex than that. I won't get into the details about who is refusing to release them (that's a messy story and unclear). The recordings being talked about are the ones that didn't go on the air, including hot mike recordings that were never part of the show.
And Ron Paul as the chair of the Fed (Score:1)
And Ron Paul as the chair of the Federal Reserve. That'd actually be a pretty badass move IMO. He will oversee its audit and subsequent shutdown.
Interesting problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Should you,
do you do what you boss says (obama)
or wait till your soon to be boss shows up. (trump)
I think you always work for the current President.
The next guy can wait till he shows up.
Not a nice job, but it is the job you signed up to do.
Not quite what happened.
Perhaps there was some discussion with the incomming administration to head us this way?
(A congress critter is not the same.)
Re: (Score:1)
In this specific case, the new guy. Look at the agenda pieces: they all involve things that will happen in *years*, not days. What's the point of negotiating on, say, price caps, if they'll never be implemented?
Re:Interesting problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it forces the next person to actively undo them, which can potentially be a news story with political backlash. Instead, the next person now doesn't have to do anything and they get their way, and no one will remember when it just doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
No-win for the citizens too?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to make lemonade from the lemons for the next 4 years....
Re: (Score:2)
He's already in a mess (Score:3, Interesting)
Half of Trump's transition team has been fired. Chris Christie was fired because he was Governor when Trump's son-in-law's Jared's, father was prosecuted on fraud charges and didn't pardon the fraudster.
Mike Rogers left after getting a briefing on the Trump Russian links from the CIA.
Trump then assigned son-in-law, Jared and his children, to his transition team, but US code 5 USC 3110, Trump may not "appoint, employ, advance, or advocate for" relatives in "the agency in which he is serving or over which he
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, he is not president until January 20 and the transition team is not a federal agency, so 5 USC 3110 doesn't apply in this case. If he were to try to appoint one of his trumplings to anything post-inauguration, though, then there would be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of Trump's transition team has been fired. Chris Christie was fired because he was Governor when Trump's son-in-law's Jared's, father was prosecuted on fraud charges and didn't pardon the fraudster.
No, Christie was the US District Attorney who prosecuted Charles Kushner in 2004. He didn't become governor until 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IE, it's legal for Trump's relatives to serve on his transition team, just not his cabinet.
It would also be legal for them to serve as "advisers," I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is not their boss. I mean, he appointed them, but he doesn't really have any ongoing power to use. Congress can defund their Koreig. Trump can reappoint them. Obama can just wave to them in the hall.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's historical? We have a lame duck session normally, but is it typical to demand the current government cease all work until the new government shows up? Did Obama demand that the Bush administration stop all activities? Did the Bush administration demand that the Clinton administration stop working? Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that? Now you know when the FCC does nothing that some loud mouth on the Republican side is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that?
The Republicans certainly believed that when it came to approving judgeship appointments . . . .
I'm suspicious (Score:2, Informative)
I'm suspicious of every article I see posted by BeauHD these days regardless of content, almost to the point of avoiding reading anything he posts - simply because of his tailored anti-Trump agenda, including his legendary twitter account posts that would have him twitter banned for hate speech if twitter uniformly applied their anti-hate rhetoric across political lines.
I only posted this because I just realized that I've been avoiding a good chunk of slashdot to avoid this garbage.
And now I'm sad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: I'm suspicious (Score:2, Informative)
I can't even begin to fathom the level of ignorance and sheer stupidity that prompts a comment like this.
Yes, encouraging people to educate themselves and research the validity of the news stories they read is a big ploy. The Democrats are out to get you by telling you to do your research.
Go ahead and revel in your idiocy. 60+ years worth of social progress is dangerously close to obliteration thanks to those who decided that having a female president is worse than a racist, xenophobic, egomaniac.
Congrats
Re: I'm suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
By framing Trump's win as being the result of sexism you fail to acknowledge that many people chose not to vote for Clinton for various flaws, completely unrelated to her gender. Without some convincing proof otherwise, I'd assume that the number of people who voted for Trump _because_ Clinton was female is vanishingly small. The number for whom it was a consideration may be higher, but is still dwarfed by the number of people who rejected Clinton for her ties with banks and big business, 'pay for play' and accusations of corruption, scandals relating to mishandling of classified material, feeling that the Democrat's no longer represented the interests of those who once voted for them and/or any of dozens of other reasons that came up during the campaign.
The degree to which any of those has merit can be debated. What can not is that these had a marked impact on various groups of voters that may previously have voted for a Democrat candidate.
Re: (Score:1)
The GP is an idiot. The DNC decided that come hell or high water, they were going to have Hillary elected. What's likely true and sad is they could have picked virtually anyone else, even a moderate Republican like Kasich or even Rubio, and had a cake walk into a win. Even with Hillary's baggage, it took the Republicans and Comey combined to throw the election. Yes, throw it, just look at the huge shift in the polls 11 days prior to the election. And she still won the popular vote in spite of that.
My hope
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).
There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's wrong with NPR? They're the most balanced and fair media outlet I've seen in the last decade. They present views and stories from across the spectrum. Liberals complain that it's too conservative, conservatives complain that it's too liberal, so it feels just right to me.
Stop picking sides like this is just a dumb ball game! Start using your brain to decide how you feel about the issues instead of letting others tell you how to think. Read the news from all segments instead of just the ones
Re: (Score:2)
Oh how I wish it were just late night TV shows cherry picking idiots for comedic value. In reality, I have several friends who voted for very similar reasons. One lady voted for Trump because she thought it would be funny. One guy said he wanted his freedom back. I asked him, "what specific freedom do you want back, and how was it taken from you?" The answer was a long time coming and basically boiled down to the right not to have health insurance, but still be taken care of if he ended up in the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
As Rep. Henry Waxman and Senator Jay Rockefeller noted during the 2008 Presidential transition, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing," Upton and Walden wrote. "We strongly urge you to concentrate the Commission's attention and resources only on matters that require action under the law and efforts to foster the success of the broadcast incentive auction."
Re: (Score:1)
BTW - The FCC under Bush did exactly the same thing at the request of the incoming Obama administration. Time to take a deep breath snowflakes!
As Rep. Henry Waxman and Senator Jay Rockefeller noted during the 2008 Presidential transition, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing," Upton and Walden wrote. "We strongly urge you to concentrate the Commission's attention and resources only on matters that require action under the law and efforts to foster the success of the broadcast incentive auction."
No, they didn't, AAMOF. What they asked in their letter dated December 12, 2008 follows:
"The most important challenge for the Commission over the next nine weeks is to ensure the smoothest possible transition to digital television (DTV). At a time when serious questions are being raised about transition readiness, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider unrelated items, especially complex and controversial itqns that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing. V
Seems they got a hold of (Score:1)
...Hillary's cloth
Tomorrow's FCC Agenda (Score:1)
1.) Pre-approval of the merger of any and all cable television/broadband companies immediately with tax breaks based on the size and speed of the mergers
2.) MPAA/RIAA given keys to lockout any website, URL, or IP address that is deemed to by violating copyright
3.) Walt Disney given permanent copyright status in perpetuity
Did I miss anything?
Re: (Score:3)
2) Trump and Republicans in general probably aren't overly friendly to the entertainment industry. Then again they might try to do it because they believe its somehow to their benefit, but Trump was also against TPP (see point one) so assuming he says anything remotely related to how he actually feels, suppo
Re: (Score:2)
3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?
They do, but it requires they write checks to representatives and senators every decade or two to extend it again. If Disney could get rid of that pesky "limited" word in Article 1, Section 8, they could forego the cost of pretending it isn't de-facto unlimited copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?
They do, but it requires they write checks to representatives and senators every decade or two to extend it again. If Disney could get rid of that pesky "limited" word in Article 1, Section 8, they could forego the cost of pretending it isn't de-facto unlimited copyright.
"Limited" is not a problem. The USSC ruled that as long as a finite duration is specified, then it meets the requirements for "limited".
The government can't just shut down like this (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the same logic they used to block the supreme court nomination, and is wrong for the same reason.
Re:The government can't just shut down like this (Score:5, Informative)
The republicans always get what they want. Just like they got to deny Obama his Supreme Court appointee even though he still had a year left in his presidency. Get used to it because it's only gonna get worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like they got to deny Obama his Supreme Court appointee even though he still had a year left in his presidency.
Congress gets to set the number of justices on the court.
The Senate have the power to deny the president's appointees for all 4 years if they wanted; it's one of the legislative checks on the
executive, that the president can only make selections that the Senate will consent to.
Obama could have gotten sneaky though and made an appointment when the Senate was in recess..... then the appoin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The government can't just shut down like this (Score:4, Informative)
You're right that the constitution doesn't dictate the number of justices but the Judiciary Act of 1969 does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Consequently, it's not optional to have eight except for temporary purposes (like retiring judge). Again, it doesn't matter because the republicans will do whatever the fuck they want anyway.
Re:The government can't just shut down like this (Score:4, Informative)
At least they've set a precedent now, so if any judges die/retire after Jan 2020... they're gonna have a tough time arguing that one.
No they won't. Have you ever paid attention to the Republican party? For example, they love deficits when they are in power and hate them when Dems are in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, that isn't true. They fund stuff off the books so it doesn't look like they are running a large deficit.
That, too. But when Bush the Stupid got in office, they pushed through huge tax cuts under the claim that deficits didn't matter. As soon as Obama got in, they started screaming about deficits (that they created by the huge tax cuts).
Re: (Score:2)
Consequently, it's not optional to have eight except for temporary purposes (like retiring judge)
That's a false "consequently". The Judiciary act of 1969 is not binding on congress.
Also, for the same reason the "Line item veto" law was found unconstitutional ---- Congress is not capable of passing laws which impose restrictions or regulations on future acts of congress, not without approval of a constitutional amendment.
So while the Judiciary Act of 1969 calls for X justices; the Senate has the legal
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress since they're the only relevant party (other than the President). Consequently, what would be the point of doing that if it has no value whatsoever (which is what you're arguing)?
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress since they're the only relevant party (other than the President). Consequently, what would be the point of doing that if it has no value whatsoever (which is what you're arguing)?
Publicity?
Congress cannot pass a law that they cannot ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress passed the law, and the law only applies to Congress
NOPE. See U.S. v. Winstar Corp. and Justice David Souter quoted
Congress is not beholden to any decision made by a past congress.
That would be legislative entrenchment. The courts have ruled that con
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans always get what they want
The vast majority of them didn't want Trump as the nominee, so I don't think that's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was racism mentioned in that post? You brought that up out of left field. Or maybe right field? Definitely not center field.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Invaliding an FCC regulation would require legislative action by the congress, specifying what to chance, since the regulatory authority over these matters has been vested by congress with the FCC.
It's not like Trump would have the power to take office and unilaterally void all the FCC rules without any debate in the house.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC could pass regulations that will be invalidated upon Trump's inauguration, or they could avoid wasting everyone's time and do this. They took the cost-cutting choice.
The FCC is an independent agency. The president gets to appoint commissioners, designate the chairman, and suggest policy, but he does not have the authority to set the agenda or give orders. Further only 3 of the 5 commissioners may be of the same party as the president. Trump will get to appoint two new commissioners in 2017 as their terms are expiring, so the new board will almost certainly got from majority (D) to (R).
There's a big difference between the new administration overturning something the p
Re: (Score:1)
The FCC could pass regulations that will be invalidated upon Trump's inauguration, or they could avoid wasting everyone's time and do this. They took the cost-cutting choice.
Getting intelligent and important ideas on the public record, even if 'invalidated' by Trump, is not at all necessarily a "waste of everyone's time". But apparently they didn't evaluate their ideas that highly.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt they are just trying to save money. They know that once passed it will be harder and more controversial to undo decisions already made.
It's like Obamacare. As much as the Republicans hate it and would love to repeal every last word, in practice now it's here they will find it much more difficult to take away from people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We still want business to happen (Score:2)
That's ridiculous (Score:2)
I'm a Republican, but that's completely stupid.
The FCC is part of the executive branch and last time I checked, Mr Obama is still very much president. Essentially, they just quit working because "some guys over there" said they should.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say he IS one, he merely acts as if he wishes he were one. Which is the point that I think people are making that use that language.
Keeping in mind the commentary here (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/) that a simple count of exec orders is nearly meaningless, I think one could have a reasonable case that Mr Obama has issued more substantive exec orders in lieu of legislation than previous presidents.
Some might assert "he had to, the GOP refused to work wi
Why do we even have an FCC? (Score:1)
You would think the ACLU would be all over getting rid of a federal communication commission. Sounds like a joke, something from the old Soviet Union. If they want to regulate the use of the electromagnetic spectrum and not things protected in the 1st amendment then they need a new name and a new mission.
Re: (Score:2)
this only shows your own ignorance.
Can We Save Tom Wheeler? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there seriously any public actions that could even possibly support Wheeler's FCC enough to not die?
Sounds like he's already doing what he can do: putting his head down and praying for change in the future, but trying not to rock the boat now.
I don't think it will work, but what do you suggest be done?
Who's president NOW? (Score:2)
I think every government agency should stop everything it's doing in the next four years, because in four years time, Trump will be replaced by another president.
Current government decides what happens, this whole "lame duck" bullshit isn't legal in any way or supported by any constitution or amendment.
FCC stopping plans now due to Trump not yet being in government is the same as failing to serve the current government.
also the right to communicate provision (Score:2)
I thought they were also going to talk about the right to communicate for Ham radio operators basically telling HOA's to go fuck themselves in regards to ham radio antennas. and how most HOA's try and ban them.
Hams save your ass during disasters, The local government is utterly inept at communications during disasters. and in some states like Florida, it's nearly impossible to buy a home that is not in a HOA.
People are missing what's going on (Score:2)
A Toast to the Dingo (Score:2)
RIP Net Neutrality (Score:2)
RIP Net Neutrality
Fake News (Score:2)
I've got a feeling that it's going to get harder to tell what's fake news for the next while. I thought that this was a joke at first. Earlier today there was an article on CNN about women who have babies from sexual attacks have to share custody of the child with the attacker. If the attacker doesn't get convicted with a serious enough crime (for example, convicted of sexual assault 3 instead of sexual assault 1) then they can sue for visitation rights. I didn't check it out but when you articles like t
Re: (Score:1)
The title says everything was dropped. The summary lists one item that wasn't dropped and restricts what was cut to only vote-able items. The headline is clearly false, unless you redefine what 'everything' means.