Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

Elizabeth Warren Accuses Advisory Panel For FCC of Corruption (cnet.com) 167

Posted by BeauHD from the conflict-of-interest dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: A panel that provides policy advice to the Federal Communications Commission is "stacked with corporate insiders," Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said Monday. She cited a blog post by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), which showed more than half of all Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) members are direct employees of private companies or of industry trade groups. This could lead to allegations that rather than working for American consumers, the FCC is working for "giant telecom companies", Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, tweeted Monday.

"This is the definition of corruption: industry members writing the rules to benefit themselves & their rich friends," she added in another tweet. Sen. Warren has called on FCC Chair Ajit Pai to "explain the extent to which CSRIC may be corrupted by corporate influence." A letter from Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal dated June 27, spotted earlier by The Hill, asks for information (PDF) from Pai on whether the panel is "inappropriately dominated by industry (pdf) insiders." "The industry-dominated personnel on the panel have recommended policies that are directly in line with the wishes of the companies from which their members are drawn," the letter says, adding that POGO says a lack of expertise among FCC members means they rely increasingly on the panel's recommendations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elizabeth Warren Accuses Advisory Panel For FCC of Corruption More

Elizabeth Warren Accuses Advisory Panel For FCC of Corruption

Comments Filter:

  • The FCC? Corrupt? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @08:55PM (#58864226) Homepage Journal

    I am shocked! Shocked that regulatory capture is going on in there.

    • Re: The FCC? Corrupt? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:02PM (#58864252)

      But it's awfully nice having my senator be willing to stand up and call it for what it is.

      Kudos, Senator Warren. Thank you.

      • Re: The FCC? Corrupt? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:20PM (#58864304)

        But it's awfully nice having my senator be willing to stand up and call it for what it is.

        That is the equivalent of standing up and saying water is wet.

        The current FCC is a textbook example of regulatory capture, and that has been obvious for quite a while.

        The question is, what are we going to do about it?

        • Re: The FCC? Corrupt? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:25PM (#58864320)

          And, I used to be amazed at how many politicians would refuse to admit water is wet. Now, I'm shocked when it happens.

        • I vote for getting rid of administrative bureaucracy that's so easily and frequently corrupted and make the legislative branch do its job.

        • Pointing out a problem is the first step to fixing it.

          For fuck sake, it's strictly better than what was happening the day before.

          • Pointing out a problem is the first step to fixing it.

            It has been pointed out many times, by many people.

            Liz isn't contributing anything new by pointing it out yet again.

            What is her proposed solution? If she has one, TFA doesn't mention it.

            • It has been pointed out many times, by many people.

              Please link to the last time a politician with national stature said so. Better if they also have/had a real chance of being president in 1.5 years.

            • It's pretty obvious the plan is to replace Trump with a president that will demote Pai, and when his term is up, put forth a better nomination. I wouldn't think that would need explaining considering she is a presidential candidate. Why the fuck are you criticizing Warren so much for pointing it out and not bitching about the fact that Trump supercharged the corruption by putting Pai in power?

        • Re: The FCC? Corrupt? (Score:5, Funny)

          by greythax ( 880837 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @11:14AM (#58867308)

          Trump is going to fix it when he drains the swamp. Any day now....

      • Kudos, Senator Warren. Thank you

        Controlled opposition.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        I'm sure she never called for the FCC to censor people or praised the FCC on their groundbreaking net neutrality stance when it was repealed or called for the repeal of Obama's Net Neutrality. Oh wait, she did.

        Top contributors to Warren:
        - A laundry list of Universities where she has been a 'professor of color'
        - A laundry list of lawyer firms (basically a front for laundering donations to avoid FEC rules)
        - Google
        - AT&T
        - Morgan Stanley (Financial firm)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        She calls it what it is, and then will call for more of it. If you're going to have an advisory council, who would be on it other than people who work in the industry? What would you do, staff it with members of the various SJW groups who would only think of a car rental when they hear Hertz?

        Government agencies will always have regulatory capture, because bureaucrats don't need advice, and the ones being regulated have the most interest in affecting the outcome of the regulations. Yet, dimwits like Fauxa

        • The FCC isn't supposed to be for their benefit--it's for OUR benefit as citizens. Why falsely imply that the only stakeholders are industry insiders?

          How about the people paying for these services. Don't we deserve representation?

    • ...a lack of expertise among FCC members means they rely increasingly on the panel's recommendations.

      Sounds like all is going according to plan. Now if we could just do something about the plan...

    • The cure for regulatory capture is vigilance. It seems strange to call someone out fore that.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sen. Warren has called on FCC Chair Ajit Pai to "explain the extent to which CSRIC may be corrupted by corporate influence."

      Ajit Pai: *sips from giant Reese's mug*
      Ajit Pai: *long pause*
      Ajit Pai: "There is no corruption by corporate influence in the CSRIC."

  • it's not just the FCC (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Check the FDA, the EPA, the USDA, the HHS, the DPWH, and the IRS. All of these are in bed with corporate interests. It's especially troubling that we pay taxes every year according to the whims of corporate lobbyist and not based on policy determined by our duly elected representative.

  • Obvious, but good she's bringing attention to it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:34PM (#58864366) Homepage

    After the FCC let net neutrality go *poof*, and then let Verizon renege [slashdot.org] on their agreements attached to their c-block spectrum license [arstechnica.com], it's become overwhelmingly clear whose interests the FCC serves.

    Personally, I live in a neighborhood served by only one wired broadband provider, and your option for switching to a competitor is to move. This is the sort of thing the FCC should be looking into, but they're too busy sucking off big telco.

    Kudos to Warren for fighting the good fight. I don't entirely agree with her on every issue, but at least she's got her heart in the right place.
     

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The FCC kludge for Net Neutrality was to use ancient POTS regulations on modern internet companies. It was wrong and should never have happened. The proper place is for Congress to write actual bills to address the modern issues. Just because you believe something should exist doesn't mean it should be done in some half-assed way that just creates more problems and uncertainty. We have a right way to regulate and we should encourage actual bi-partisan action. That means compromises from both sides to f

    • Hey brainiac, That net neutrality law was written by the same people.

      Did you ever read it carefully? It was written to keep competition out.

  • Case is not proven (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coastwalker ( 307620 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .reklawtsaoca.> on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:37PM (#58864384) Homepage

    I am not sure what " Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability" has to do with screwing over consumers. Most of the industry participants will probably be technical experts who are there in order to prevent other businesses technical experts from setting up unfair rules that leverage patents or installed infrastructure to prevent competition. Warren needs to provide a bit more proof of her assertion that the advisory panel is anti competitive. I think that the evidence as presented actually proves the opposite. This could be an unfortunate mistake that will affect her credibility.

    • Re:Case is not proven (Score:5, Informative)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @12:55AM (#58865114)

      The idea that bureaucrats and corporate experts are there to protect fairness seems immediately nonsensical. They may personally promote fairness, but they have a strong and often compelling interest in advancing their own company's power and profit, and in hindering competition. Some fairness can be a _consequence_ of balancing these interests, but we've plenty of historical examples of abusive regulatory manipulation in the FCC, the FDA, and the SEC. It occurs in regulatory bodies and civilian agencies like the AMA and the various bar associations as well.

      The abuse by Ajit Pal of the Net Neutrality polls and resulting regulation changes are a prime example of DCC abuse. So are the abject failures, and the unwillingness, of the FCC to revise regulations concerning unsolicited email, data privacy, and customer tracking. Does Elizabeth Warren need to point to other examples?

      • Net neutrality is indeed an abuse, but it has nothing to do with "Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability" and neither do the other abuses. The abuse is all about the businesses taking revenue from other sectors of the economy and not to do with competition between them. The cases are different and without more evidence you are just crying wolf and actually damaging consumer advocacy as they will just point to this as a false accusation to deflect attention.

        • Discarding net neutrality was a _direct_ blow against interoperability and reliability. Its repeal encourages ISP's to be walled gardens, to favor their internal network services over those from across the Internet.

          > The abuse is all about the businesses taking revenue from other sectors of the economy and not to do with competition between them

          I'm sorry to say that this sentence makes no sense. Taking revenue from other sectors of the economy can, and does, hinder competition between businesses in diffe

    • As long as Washington operates on a revolving door model where lobbyists become politicians and vice versa, the system is designed to be corrupt.

      • As long as Washington operates on a revolving door model where lobbyists become politicians and vice versa, the system is designed to be corrupt.

        Washington is a city for sale and doomed to quick destruction, if it should find a buyer
        -- Paraphrasing Jugurtha.

  • Usefulness (Score:3)

    by samwichse ( 1056268 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @09:38PM (#58864396)

    Suddenly I like Elizabeth Warren more for some reason.

  • This is what I hate about establishment media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 02, 2019 @10:17PM (#58864562)
    it's long, long past an accusation. This is like calling water wet and grass green. We've had Goldman Sach's in charge of the mother fucking treasury since Reagan for Pete's sake. This isn't even an open secret [opensecrets.org] anymore [commondreams.org]

    I just wonder if anyone will do anything about it. There's Bernie, Liz and the "Justice Democrats" who all refuse corporate money. Then there's Biden, Harris, Buttigieg and O'Rouke [medium.com] who gleefully take them. Not to mention the $102 million Trump's raised for a campaign he hasn't even started yet (excuse me, he started it the day after inauguration, for fundraising purposes anyway).

    I think the path is pretty clear if you want to go against corruption. But it means giving some things up. You're gonna pay for other people's healthcare (assuming you make $300k/yr+, under that and you'll probably come out ahead). Wages for lower paid workers will go up. I know a lot of folks at $12-$15/hr who really hate that because right now they're the big man about town in comparison to their $8/hr brethren and they feel like they're losing out. Also, folk like Liz Warren often tell people what to do, kinda like your Nana does, and, well, some people really, really hate that. They'd rather die of insulin shock then give up that feeling of autonomy...

    But those are things you'll have to give up. And for some people they're more important than corruption. It's about compromise. We'll find out in a few months when the Democratic primary hits how important corruption is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      But it means giving some things up.

      Giving up on meritocracy is a cost too high.

  • Boeing / FAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by devlp0 ( 897273 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @02:28AM (#58865418) Journal
    Remember when Boeing aeroplanes were literally dropping out of the sky and killing everyone on board but the US FAA were one of the last flight authorities to recognise the planes were unsafe. Only a couple of months ago - Go America!

  • The patrician (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chthon ( 580889 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @06:20AM (#58865998) Journal

    Where is Havelock Vetinari when you need him?

  • God forbid the advisers be experts. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @08:20AM (#58866396)
    Here's the thing - the experts in the field are not going to be unemployed. They are not going to be professional advisers or professors. The experts are going to be working in the industry, that's how they become experts and what their expertise is for.

    Who exactly would Warren like to be advising the FCC on technical matters? Non-experts? Random people off the street? People the industry didn't think were good enough to hire?

    Of course you don't want corrupt advisory panels or overwhelming regulatory capture, but you do want the advisers to be experts. And that means they will be industry insiders. This is unavoidable.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's really, really hard for someone who works inside of an industry to not be biased towards that industry's perspectives, speaking as someone who works in a (similar) industry.

      However, you're right in that we still want the people regulating that industry to be experts in said industry. I'm not too sure it's even possible to solve this, to be honest. Is there some kind of process we can apply to people being considered for a regulatory role in their own industry so we can minimize the conflicting intere

      • The only workaround I can see is to pay regulators industry wages, but even then the problem remains. Expertise is built by doing the work, not regulating it.

        In the end, regulators need to find industry experts who have a regulator's perspective, which could mean they aren't seen as experts but annoyances that don't get promoted.

  • What better group can there be to run the FCC than a group of corporate insiders? How better to get what you want when you become the institution that can grant it for you.
  • Ajit Pai is not acting in the best interests of the American People.
  • She says the FCC is stacked with corporate insiders?

    I guess she doesn't know about the corporate donations she is accepting from:

    AT&T
    Google
    Morgan Stanley

    Just like any other politician.

    It's okay that she accepts the money ... but come on, lady, who do you think you're fooling?

    http://www.opensecrets.org/mem... [opensecrets.org]
  • If you did not already know that the government in the USA was owned 100% by the large corpoate donors (Elizabeth Warren too!, if those corporations had donated more to her campaign, she would be silent on this issue, as all politicians are) then you should at least have a clue now!

  • Slashdot political blinders (Score:3)

    by codemachine ( 245871 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @01:29PM (#58868018)

    The comments section of Slashdot is a sad shell of its former self.

    This site has almost universally loathed Ajit Pai as FCC chairman, and for darned good reason. He's the clear antithesis of what Slashdot and open source values are all about.

    However, all it takes is for Elisabeth Warren to be the one to state the obvious, and suddenly the political blinders come on. As someone who isn't American, it is disheartening to see so many Slashdot posters go out of the way to trash Warren or deflect the conversation because of the political party Warren is with, rather than looking at the issue she's discussing. Way to abandon your principles and indirectly support FCC corruption, just to cheer for your political team.

    Ajit Pai's FCC is fricking horrible. Full stop.

  • Honest question (Score:3)

    by caseih ( 160668 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @02:33PM (#58868422)

    If you had a perfect world and forbid any former industry person from advising the FCC, who would you then get to advise the FCC? We can argue about regulatory capture all we want, but folks inside these industries we want to regulate know the most about them, for good or bad. Slashdot commenters continually call out politicians for their technical ignorance. Do we want the same level of ignorance or ineptitude (well more than we have now anyway) among the members of these various bodies?

    If regulation were proposed to govern, say, software development, would not we want to make sure that people experienced in the industry advised the politicians to make sure these regulations were realistic and appropriate? If it were your job on the line I think you'd want to have some input.

    The problem is we know corruption and fraud when we see it, but it's much harder to propose a solution to permanently fix it and instill good ethics.

  • The FCC is lead by criminals who scoff at intellectuality, technicality, and law. Pai is is gangster in government, which is the simple definition of fascism The proof is in his November 2018 procedure and finding that carriers may read texts, the primary method of millennial private communication.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close