The NYT article is a bit better: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/business/technology-invest...
Forbes has more info: http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-wheeler.
BusinessWeek has a more complete profile: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
He has a blog/website: http://www.mobilemusings.net.
What is evil is when they are granted inappropriate influence over the legislation, regulation and appropriation.
And that problem pretty much starts with campaign donations but has roots in other areas as well.
Is that the Scientologist ISP?
It's my understanding that while they were directly involved, some of the published media the corporation put out would sometimes have a 'column' where Sky ended up mentioning Scientology in some way. However, none of them are involved in the company any more.
The company went through some major restructuring, leadership and organization-wise, in 2006-2007. They're a public company with a board of directors (of which Tom is now a part). Not sure how much Scientology has any impact or connection (financial or otherwise) to it any more, so I'm not sure calling it the 'Scientologist ISP' is still accurate.
I know that the connections/beliefs of the founders - and the fact that Reed Slatkin was convicted of a massive ponzi scam - has put Earthlink on many scam/cult watch lists semi-permanently.
If you're attempting to draw a connection between Tom and Scientology, though, I'm not sure I follow.
Obama to nominate venture capitalist Thomas Wheeler to head FCC
Meanwhile internet technology is among the least regulated. Someone needs to do something to ensure a vibrant competitive landscape.
Secondly, you're implying that the correlation between regulation and 'success' in those sectors implies causation between the two. Do you really think that the problem with health care in the US is that it's not regulated ENOUGH? Similarly, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that education should be privatised? And lastly, do you think that the success of internet technology is a result of the fact that it has been less regulated than other industries (I'm not saying that it SHOULD be regulated, I'm just questioning whether or not that is a crucial factor)?
If that was intended only as a joke I understand, however I think it's important to think seriously about these things if we are to every try to fix them.
The logic behind the reasoning for healthcare, education, banking, telcom being heavily regulated is extremely flawed. The real reason those sectors are heavily regulated is so they can lock in profits with little effort.
On the other hand, companies like Amazon and Facebook have little to do with broadening access to knowledge and information (barring the latter in a trivial sense of the word), and are oriented towards generating capital, so I don't think the rhetorical questions that you open with are applicable here.
I'd like to hear you elaborate on why the reasoning for regulation is flawed in the cases of healthcare, education, banking, telecom.
Exactly, how do so many people miss this?
Couldn't this be said of the food industry, the clothing industry, etc.? How are you not arguing for communism?
So either this is extreme sarcasm or extremely hilarious in a laugh-gets-stuck-in-your-throat kind of way.
The situation in the US is not quality, but access. But the same phenomenon exists for internet technology (e.g. The digital divide).
Who was it who said "when buying and selling are legislated, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators?"
Some types of industry do risk lives. Don't confuse safety regulations with other business regulations. They serve completely different purposes.
We should regulate the hell out of fertilizer depots, power generators, medical software, flight. For good reason.
If you want to place some in the middle of a city, they will be close to a lot of people, and if their emissions kill people, it's probably not a good idea to place them near lots of people. But they have been placed pretty much everywhere. It appears that either you're overstating the dangers, or we're both about to die any second now.
Gov. Perry got a little steamed when his "Business is Booming" campaign was highlighted:
Edit: better story link to cartoon.
Not saying this is enough but no one is exploding these things for profit.
They refused to build a blast wall and congress defunded inspections so the last one was in the 90s so there was never any enforcement.
There exists swathes of practically unlicensed spectrum, such as ham radio and 2.4GHz. While regulation exists, large scale enforcement is pretty much unheard of, yet it works pretty well.
The big cellular telecom standards (GSM and CDMA) assume a very orderly environment (contrasting the 801.11x standards that are more adaptive), so they would probably look different in a world with unregulated airwaves.
EDITED to add: For the purpose of such a thought experiment, It's not practical to imagine what would happen if the current GSM 2G and 3G spectrum just became unlicensed overnight. There is a huge infrastructure investment, both on the carrier and consumer ends that would become worthless, and this is clearly undesirable. Rather, imagine a block of airwaves (say, ex-military or analogue broadcast TV) being released with zero or minimal regulation (no exclusivity, basically).
What's more, it's hardly clear that you've got this proverb the right way around: It seems as likely that corrupt legislators create regulation to enrich them and their kind, as opposed to well-intentioned regulation leading to the corruption of legislators. I've cut out the middle - corrupt legislators creating corrupt legislation - which is what we actually have and also the sort of murk that doesn't lend itself to witticism.
As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. It's like expecting your local cable monopoly to be a better ISP because they have to compete with your local telephone monopoly for Internet subscribers.
I like that independents like Bernie Sanders and Angus King manage to get into the senate, it provides a little bit of hope for change.
Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists.
Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day, all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour paid leave to go out and vote.
(None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would help.)
IRV is a hack to incorporate run-off voting into the first-round voting system, and run-off voting is lacking.
In a political system as dysfunctional as the U.S., allowing voters to express true voting preferences is more important than having a voting system that will lead to only marginally better outcomes. Once true voting preferences are known, the political parties will have to adjust to accommodate that. As long as the voting system encourages some people to hide their true voting preferences, those preferences cannot push the two dominant political parties to change their platforms.
Don't mistake the fact that we have social policies different from those in the US for diversity, it is very much a cross-party consensus.
I just think that we need to introduce more competition so that the parties are forced to compete on concrete goals and actions, rather than lofty ideals that are more suited to a sports match (which is what American politics often feels like).
> As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another.
In Europe, there are many more parties, but that doesn't make politics less of a two-team sports match.
My point was that you've identified the wrong culprit in the two-party system.
"...Tom Wheeler, appeared open in 2011 to letting wireless giant AT&T Inc. acquire T-Mobile USA...But he had a price. In exchange for a $39 billion merger, AT&T would have had to agree to a slew of new regulations, according to an idea Mr. Wheeler laid out at the time on his personal blog."
If you dig into said personal blog, you can find the following article , where Mr. Wheeler summarizes his reasoning:
"Now we have the perverse situation where a government win means less regulation while a victory for the corporate interest opens the door to more."
It is clear through his explanation that his approval was meant only as leverage for harsher regulations on the duopoly of wireless TelCos. That is a pretty solid indicator of where his allegiance lies. Likewise, if you meander around his blog, you'll see lots of musings in favor of Net Neutrality.
Industry incumbents frequently use lobbyists to create regulation to raise the bar to entry in their field, cementing their own position and stifling competition - creating the kinds of complacent mono/doupolies that we know so well from cable companies and ISPs.
As for why they have become complacent monopolies: that is the nature of telecom (natural monopolies). There is unlimited economics of scale, so the most efficient state is E.G. For Verizon to keep growing until its the only wireless carrier.