
Expecting the Unexpected at the FCC - freecasttv
https://ottsquared.com/expecting-the-unexpected-at-the-fcc-a755039745e0#.94p2ykvd5
======
tptacek
_In a stunning reversal, the former top lobbyist for the cable industry as
head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association returned with a
new proposal that gave consumers what they had asked for_

How seriously am I meant to take an article so intent on misleading me?
Wheeler was President of NCTA back in _nineteen eight four_ \--- predating not
just the commercial Internet but the modern cable industry and its dominant
role in the media landscape. When Wheeler was last involved with NCTA, cable
companies were startups.

Further, contrary to the claim this article makes, Wheeler didn't introduce
controversial fast-lane policies to skirt net neutrality. Rather: the courts
struck down broad regulations on fast-lanes altogether, and Wheeler attempted
to introduce narrower restrictions. He did literally the opposite thing this
article implies he did.

------
westbywest
Admitted that the erratic nature of the new administration makes it tricky to
anticipate what tack (if any) Pai's FCC will take. However, the progress thus
far in enormous telco mergers, Charter/TimeWarner/Verizon in particular,
doesn't suggest an incoming regulatory environment that will benefit end users
much.

~~~
maxxxxx
Whatever I have seen is they are keen on removing any kind of regulation so I
would expect they believe abandoning net neutrality will benefit end users by
increasing choice. They just argued that requiring retirement advisers to work
in the interest of the people they are advising is bad for the end user.

~~~
ikeboy
That's a pretty bad framing. The argument against the fiduciary rule is that
it will decrease access to advisers, which is what in fact happened in
Britain, see e.g.
[https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-...](https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-
dol-s-fiduciary-rule-what-we-can-learn-from-the-u-k) or
[http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-
rule-...](http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-
explained)

The question is whether the harm caused by the decreased access is worse than
the harm caused by conflicted advice, which is by no means an easy question to
answer.

~~~
maxxxxx
What good is advice that is not in the interest of the advised? Maybe we
should lower ethical standards for doctors too so people have more access to
doctors no matter what their real motivation is.

~~~
ikeboy
The question is whether some advice is better than no advice.

There are arguments on both sides.

See e.g. [https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-
fi...](https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fix-
financial-advisors/)

~~~
maxxxxx
I will vote for no advice. It's too easy to exploit this.

