FCC Accused of Colluding With Big Cable To Game 5G Legal Challenge (theregister.co.uk) 104
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via The Register: U.S. telecoms regulator the FCC has been accused of colluding with companies it is supposed to oversee in order to protect a controversial decision over new 5G networks. Chair of the House Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, has sent a letter to FCC chair Ajit Pai asking for copies of communications between the FCC and the big telcos regarding legal challenges to the regulator's 5G order, which forces local governments to charge a flat fee for installing new base stations. In the letter [PDF], Pallone strongly implies that the committee has heard from a whistleblower.
"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads. In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.
"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have urged companies to challenge the order the Commission adopted in order to game the judicial lottery procedure and intimated the agency would look unfavorably towards entities that were not helpful," it reads. In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order that is designed to benefit them as a way of gaming the judicial system so the case didn't end up in a court likely to overturn it.
You don't say? (Score:3)
The whore colluding with the john against the government? No way!
Re: (Score:2)
The whore colluding with the john against the government? No way!
Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Err.. no, blow jobs are the stock and trade of business. Err...
Still livin in the 90's, fo shizzle.
Re: (Score:2)
Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?
Giuliani is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?
Giuliani is that you?
Is crime even crime?
Re:You don't say? (Score:5, Funny)
Calling Ajit Pai a whore is an insult to whores.
Re:You don't say? (Score:4, Funny)
He is doing a great job.
I agree! It takes a lot of butt-hole exercise to prevent prolapse when you're taking that much corporate dick.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling Ajit Pai a whore is an insult to whores.
At least with a whore, there's a happy ending.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult working people who actually provide a valuable service to the population.
I'd like to apologize.
They should be charged (Score:2)
with treason and sentenced to death.
Drain that Swamp! (Score:2, Funny)
Another win for the MAGA useful idiots
Carrying water for billionaires
Re: (Score:2)
The best part about the Trump administration is that the overall effect has been to drain the swamp. The Muller Probe guilty pleas [pbs.org], the White House turnover [nytimes.com], exposing corruption and collusion which threatens the United States itself - this is all great for our country.
Well, no. All of the corruption being removed now was installed by the Trump administration, so the overall effect is zero. And he's appointing new corrupt folks as quick as we're removing them, and now we don't have time to deal with the pre-existing corruption, so the overall corruption is increasing rapidly.
Re:Subtext (Score:4, Informative)
Id I may point out, courts do not have to be corrupt for judges to have different policies on the bench, especially judges in different states and at different levels of state or federal judiciary. For cases involving millions of dollars and the profitability of entire industries, it is unsurprising that they and their attorneys would invest in "court shopping". It would be considered unethical for their lawyers _not_ to steer the cases to the venue that best serves their clients' interests.
Re: (Score:1)
"Id I may point out, courts do not have to be corrupt for judges to have different policies on the bench"
The law is the law, so it requires either malice, incompetence, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, a state (I think TX: Google is failing me.) passed an open container law. The entire legislature vote for it. However, the law just said "open container" and the lawmakers assumed that everyone would "know" that it must means alcohol.
That phrase generally has a specific legal meaning, which returns me to my original point. Either malice (deliberately ignoring that meaning) or incompetence (not knowing that meaning) is required for the interpretation of the law to vary. The law can also be written maliciously and/or incompetently, of course, in order to attempt to cause such problems.
Re: (Score:2)
> The law is the law
If I may point out, that statement is an aphorism. It contains a general truth, but often breaks down very badly if applied badly. Judges generally have a great deal of authority to make a decision _within_ the law. Sentencing guidelines are set in the law as _ranges_. If the law did not require interpretation, there would be far, far fewer lawyers.
They don't _have to be corrupt (Score:2)
This is the result of two decades of court packing with pro-corporate justices. This is also what happens when you let money hoarding go unchecked. When it gets to be more money than a person can spend it's not money anymore, it's power.
We've let too much power accumulate into the hands of too few. We're going to start paying the price more and more often.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who is probably older than you, I've observed that "packing the courts" is commonplace. It upsets us most when we see the packing as unfair or against the common interest, or even against law itself. It's certainly occurred throughout the history of judges and whatever selection process is used for them.
I said it before and I'll say it again (Score:3, Informative)
As long as we keep voting in corrupt folks they're gonna keep being corrupt. And once again I'll drop this [justicedemocrats.com] link to the only wing of any party that makes it a litmus test to refuse corporate PAC money. As always if anyone knows a GOP equivalent I'm all ears.
The jobs are leaving the country anyway (Score:3)
Wow that's a lot of effort for a shit post (Score:2)
WWII doesn't really matter in this context. It's a strawman you're using to distract from my main point, which is that giving all the money to the 1% hasn't stopped them from outsourcing jobs. We just borrowed $1 trillion and gave it to the 1% in the form of tax cuts and they used it for mother f*king stock buy backs. No jobs, no investment.
Companies don't hire because they've got money, they hire to m
Big cable? (Score:2)
So, the major telecom operators are "big cable" now.
I am waiting for the days we'll call the leaders of the democratic party "big ass".
Re: (Score:2)
we'll call the leaders of the democratic party "big ass".
Nope. "Big ass" would clearly be in reference to the $75 Billion global strip club industry.
What the hell kind of article is this (Score:3, Interesting)
Chair of the House Commerce chair, Frank Pallone
From the department of redundancy department.
Not only has Pai's office pandered to Big Cable to an excessive degree in the past two years, pushing through changes vehemently opposed by everyone that isn't one of the main telcos, there has been a rumors that the regulator is actively working in secret with companies it is supposed to oversee.
Grammatical errors aside, this writing is just... awful.
But local government officials were very suspicions something untoward was going on.
This whole affair is very suspicions indeed.
Just great (Score:2)
In effect, the letter alleges that FCC staff -- almost certainly from Pai's office -- put pressure on the big telcos to challenge an order ...
Now we can look forward to an endless series of tweets claiming "NO COLLUSION" from Ajit Pai and the FCC too -- sigh. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can look forward to an endless series of tweets claiming "NO COLLUSION" from Ajit Pai and the FCC too -- sigh. :-)
Nah. Pai knows the fix is in. The Trump Justice Department will never charge him with anything. The House will puff and bluster and hold hearings, then do nothing. Even if they decide to impeach, the Senate will never convict (yes, impeachment applies to more than just the president). We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt those gutless partisan fucks will toe the party line no matter what. Pai can do any fucking thing he wants, including outright criminal conspiracy, and get away with it. And he kno
weasel worded (Score:2)
"It has come to our attention that certain individuals at the FCC may have..."
Qualified accusation in the passive voice. Sounds like even the Register thinks it's Fake News.
Huawei? (Score:2)
Who in the White House has interests related to 5G infrastructure? I doubt itâ€(TM) Trump is involved, not unless they are helping him get the wall, though it could be. What about hi
Re: (Score:2)