
Almost All of FCC’s New Advisory Panel Works for Telecoms - croon
http://www.thedailybeast.com/almost-all-of-fccs-new-advisory-panel-works-for-telecoms
======
maxxxxx
That's the thing that scares me the most about the current administration.
They seem to think that the only players in the economy are businesses,
especially big ones. Workers don't count, the environment doesn't count,
science that doesn't benefit business doesn't count. I think that's the area
where they will do the most long term damage.

~~~
zero_one_one
I don't think it's a case of non-businesses not being listened to, more so the
there are not enough representatives outside of the business stakeholders at
the table putting themselves forward for representation.

There is no malice in this, although it's very easy to perceive it as so. It's
purely a side product of democracy - our representatives cannot possibly (or
feasibly be expected to) represent the professional or personal interests of
each and every working person within their constituency without those
interests being put forward ahead of time and chased - hence why the questions
go out to those that are 'known to know' for advice. It's human nature - if
you know someone who has experience in a domain you're unaware of, you go to
them for advice. If the representative doesn't know you have this expertise,
they're not going to come to you for advice.

We all take for granted that our representatives in government look out for
us, however when these initiatives are raised by them, and input is requested,
the questions asked are very rarely put to laymen or individuals or groups
with a cursory or passing interest. They're usually put to those working in
the related industry or those who have a stake in the arena, as this is where
the expertise is perceived to live, and will generate the quickest consensus
on the issue.

It's all down to exposure - if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get
involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the
discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think with this administration it's more extreme than before. It seems only
millionaires, business people or lobbyists are allowed to the table.
Scientists and other experts are being treated in a hostile way.

~~~
zero_one_one
If demonstrable expertise is being offered and ignored, then that's a
completely different story...

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
If we're defining expertise in such a way that it can only be gained through
work experience at the corporations you'll later be in charge of regulating
then that's a problem with what we consider expertise to be.

~~~
zero_one_one
I think that education can only result from prior experiences, rather than
projections.

If the experience influencing education has come from those who have been
'through the ringer' at the companies pushing the technology forward,
education will always be one step behind corporate influence. Catch-22
unfortunately.

The paradigm I think has shifted (for better or worse) from taking the letter
from academia to taking it from those who have advanced these technologies
within public perception (with or without fuelling from media influence)

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I would rather have my public agencies run by someone who maybe has no direct
experience with the domain but has shown skill in public decision-making and
an ability to learn new fields than run only by people who have worked in that
domain. Which is to say if it's a catch-22 it's one that's completely self-
imposed (or is being used as a scapegoat for regulatory capture.)

------
carrja99
FCC is now a Captured Agency
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture))

~~~
wodencafe
I had never heard of this until now, thanks!

Now the tougher question, what can we do about it?

~~~
megiddo
Nothing really. The agency is acting as intended, namely as a regulatory body
serving the interests of the major industry players at the expense of minor
operators and customers.

The best solution is to simply eliminate the agency.

~~~
wfo
And since the only ostensibly pro-consumer voice with any power (the FCC) is
acting in the interest of major industry players right now, we should give the
major industry players complete control forever, even if a pro-consumer
administration takes power sometime in the future?

------
rayiner
The question is: what problems does this advisory panel need to help solve?
The prevailing view on HN seems to be that the system is broken top-down.
That's just factually untrue. The U.S. just moved into the top 10 in Akamai's
testing in terms of average broadband speeds:
[https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-
of-t...](https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-
internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf) (Figure 6). It
ranks 8 in connections above 15 mbps (Figure 10). As much as it pains anti-
deregulation folks to admit, the status quo under the 1996 Telecom Act has
worked pretty well.

Instead, the problem in broadband right now is state and local governments.
Why does Silicon Valley have such limited broadband options while Austin,
Atlanta, even exurban Maryland have multiple fiber options? The answer is that
the same NIMBY local governments that stand in the way of transit development
and new housing development also stand in the way of broadband deployment.
See, _e.g._ San Francisco's opposition to fiber deployment:
[https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-
pu...](https://sf.curbed.com/2011/4/25/10470790/at-t-you-want-to-put-that-box-
where).

Obviously, the FCC needs to prevent abuse. I think it could do a lot more in
terms of preempting state/local laws against municipal broadband, or things
like the West Virginia law that makes pole attachments harder. But for better
or worse, U.S. policy at almost all levels is to have broadband infrastructure
built with private rather than public capital. As long as that's true, pushing
for increased antagonism from the regulator might feel good, but it's probably
going to hurt, not help.

~~~
martinald
I think the speed element is too narrow. The bandwidth caps you see in the US
are very very rare in the rest of the developed world. It's also extremely
expensive compared to more competitive markets and it's almost all down to
regulatory capture.

~~~
rayiner
Here's the fiber prices for Telia in Sweden:
[https://www.telia.se/privat/bredband/jamfor-
bredband?intcmp=...](https://www.telia.se/privat/bredband/jamfor-
bredband?intcmp=bredband_subhero1). $123/month for "500-1000 mbps," and
$50/month for "50-100 mbps." YouSee charges $111 for 1000/100 in Denmark:
[https://yousee.dk/bredbaand/overblik.aspx](https://yousee.dk/bredbaand/overblik.aspx).
Hiper is an upstart service in Denmark charging $50 for gigabit:
[https://www.hiper.dk](https://www.hiper.dk). AT&T/Google/Verizon charge
roughly $70-100 for gigabit, which seems to be in the same range.

Moreover, the FCC actually has little to do with broadband deployment, whether
or not it is "captured." It's the local governments that are in charge of
almost all the relevant roadblocks to deployment: franchising, pole
attachments, etc.

~~~
elipsey
You can get Gb internet for $100 per month, and you think this is normal in
the United States?

Speculum comunications charges $95/mo. for a (theoretical) 20/1Mb connection
and they're the only game in town. This is normal for most of the country.

~~~
rayiner
The point isn't that it's normal, it's that at least in that range of the
market (which covers about a quarter of US households and growing rapidly) the
price is competitive. If you have another data point for comparison you're
welcome to post it.

------
zero_one_one
I've been involved in standardisation within my industry for some time, and
it's interesting to see how many people representing vendors are able to sway
proceedings away from that which is technically neutral (and non-proprietary),
to that which is financially beneficial to one or more implementers of the
standardisation procedure's results.

I see the same thing in play here - the airwaves are being treated like tracts
of land, and those who currently own the larger tracts don't want anyone using
the smaller plots of no-man's land on their borders, in case there are
accidental (or otherwise) trespasses onto 'owned territory', so to speak.

I'm not advocating one way or another (if you own something, it's yours, clean
and fair), but it's interesting to see how an invisible physical space is
being monetized so aggressively.

------
JumpCrisscross
Tom Wheeler was a former telecom executive [1]. His perspective as a telecom
entrepreneur informed his tenure at the FCC. Not saying this is fine, but it's
not an automatic red flag. Just a reminder to remain vigilant.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler)

~~~
ahoy
Regulatory Capture/Agency Capture is a real problem. On the one hand, it's
often the case that people with deep ties to a regulated industry are the ones
who understand it best. On the other hand, they're the people most likely to
financially benefit from poor regulatory practices.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Which is why corporate Boards and regulatory commissions should have a mix of
insiders and outsiders.

------
colordrops
Isn'r regulatory capture the status quo in Washington? This isn't out of
character with past appointments of any sort.

------
megiddo
Regulatory Capture. The FCC is staffer by special interests in the same way as
the SEC or the Fed, or the Texas Railroad Commission.

The _purpose_ of a regulatory committee is to be the creature of a specific
industry.

Kolko gives a history of the regulatory movement and it's role in "The Triumph
of the New Conservatism".

It is a must-read foranyone dealing with a regulatory body.

------
HillaryBriss
given that and the relatively hot economy, it's the perfect time to raise
broadband rates. open your wallet...

~~~
jandrese
The economy is only hot for people in the stock market or are high up the
corporate ladder. The majority is getting left behind yet again so we can
shovel ever increasing amounts of money at the rich.

------
sitkack
Where is the swamp draining?

------
rdxm
I am shocked, shocked! to find out there is gambling going on in
Casablanca.....

------
ancap
This is the legacy of the progressive movement--namely that experts, with
domain specific knowledge, should be put in charge of running bureaucracy and
creating regulations.

------
solotronics
This is a perfect example of how the silicon valley echo chamber can have
implications in DC. We all want cheap, fast, and open internet. Instead of the
right people advising the current administration I feel like the polarization
politics recently in the US is contributing to these advisors being picked.
For example if the elites in silicon valley presented themselves publicly as
more moderate and impartial they would have more say in the current admin. Its
a bad idea to alienate yourself from half of the country no matter which side
you are on.

~~~
wavefunction
Isn't this just the result of Republican policy? Enabling regulatory capture?

The official GOP stance is that industry can police itself, right?

Seems pretty simple.

~~~
redler
It happens when either major party is in control, but you're right: the
Democrats lean toward more active regulation to shape outcomes in ways that
often don't benefit dominant players, while the GOP aims to erase regulation,
often bluntly, and leave outcomes to the markets. As a practical matter,
"markets" means "dominant players in the market". The GOP view on regulatory
agencies is that they should look more like chambers of commerce, and as such,
they end up stocked with representatives of those dominant players.

