America, oh, America
Home of the vested* interest.
*If not actually vested, at least in possession of a nice cardigan.
America's comms watchdog – the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – stooped to a new low on Thursday when it made last-second changes to a new complaints procedure just minutes after it denied the changes were necessary. The regulator's July monthly meeting was overshadowed by reports and complaints that an effort to " …
I've filed multiple complaints against Frontier Telecomm with the FCC about Frontier's false and misleading advertising and failure to comply with FCC rules. The FCC has basically blown me off every time. Sounds they just to codify what they're doing already. Screwing the users and kissing big telecom's collective arses.
But as a consolation price, we get Jerusalem as the new capital of some bizarro country.
And WW3. If you think that inviting 2 countries having an unresolved territorial/separatist regions conflicts with Russia into NATO while simultaneously raising the budget from peacetime (<2% GDP) to wartime (>4% GDP) footing is anything else you need to have your brains examined.
Trump made a few explicitly clear election promises/threats including putting businessmen in charge of the regulatory bodies intended to limit the bad behaviour of their business. He gave contradictory reasons for doing this, and his voters selectively heard the reason they wanted to hear:
A) These businessmen understand the subject and will make America great again by removing regulatory barriers to prosperity. (To understand Trump voters, hit yourself on the head with a brick repeatedly until you think he was talking about your prosperity, not his friends.)
B) The Federal government is so corrupt that the only solution is to make it so corrupt that it will destroy itself. (To understand Trump voters, hit yourself on the head with a brick repeatedly until you think the resulting power vacuum would be filled by something better than the current system.)
I think he has made a good effort to follow through on this election threat but has been limited by the FBI bringing charges against some of his first choices. (A) is well under way but I think it is a bit too early to critisize Trump for not showing progress on (B).
"Trump made a few explicitly clear election promises/threats "
Which are quite similar to those made in 1928. I'm still waiting for Kristallnacht and the purging of the judiciary but it will come.
Many people have been commenting about similarities between the Science-Fiction series "V" and recent events in the USA - there's a reason for that: It's actually an adaption of a 1935 book called "It Can't Happen Here" where the bad guys were made into flesh eating aliens to make it more believable to a US audience. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)
In further "life imitating art" events, it's worth noting that "I really don't care" was the slogan of the italian fascist stormtroopers between WW1 and WW2. The town where they got started was Novo Mesto - then part of Italy - and where the woman now known as Melania Trump was born. The odds of her NOT knowing about that association are slim to negligable.
Anyone who believed a millionaire real estate speculator and developer from NYC was going to be the Common Man's representative in Washington, was smoking something awfully strong.
Donald Trump, from the bios I've read, is the epitome of the swamp creature.
Leopards (and alligators) don't change their spots.
Part of the plan to reduce taxes and still raise funds for government? By yachts for certain commissioners? Something is really rotten in DC if they thought they could get away with this little scheme. Can we please just nuke it and start over?
Yeah, I hear the choppers coming for me for this.
The FCC has fully joined the ranks of those agencies that consider it their duty to ensure that large corporations make as much money as possible regardless of the harm it causes to the citizenry. Doing everything possible to ensure the citizenry can't fight back is an essential part of that effort.
...and disgraceful how disrespectful chairpersons at the FCC and FTC act towards the tax payers who pay their salaries. More times than not these government agencies fail the populace and conspire with financially greedy industry monopolist for which these chairpersons should be terminated and replaced with competent, ethical professionals.
how disrespectful chairpersons at the FCC and FTC act towards the tax payers who pay their salaries.
Their salaries are chump change compared to what the "regulated" industries are offering so they support the larger financial contributor, the public/tax-payers can basically go and fuck themselves.
>>"FCC staff tried to argue that the wording had been available for nine months and it had had no comments or complaints about it. Using the argument that "no one complained before now" as a way to justify pushing something through to formal adoption is the worst sort of policy obfuscation"
You must not know very much about the administrative law process in the United States because you just stated that they followed the procedure. The rule can be compete shit but its not illegal at that point, it sucks for everyone using a service subject to the FCC's regulatory authority, but they made the rule legally.
If they published it in the Federal Register for their comment period (9 months) and no one complained or commented, then from a legal standpoint they're in the clear. It can be bullshit (which in this case it is) but they would be fully justified in making the rule change.
Someone will probably try to trigger a judicial review, but they're not going to be able to do it by saying the notice of proposed rulemaking wasn't issued.
As presented, this story might be entirely correct. Or the changes just might be due to screw-ups and incompetence (which happens far more often) inherent in bureaucracy. The problem is, the writer’s lack of even a veiled attempt to present a balanced article, replete with references to a work of fiction, and the scorn shown in this vituperative rant, makes me believe the actual, complete facts are other than what is presented.
This piece seems designed to invoke outrage, not to inform.
cute. any attempt to "present a balanced article" regarding the FCC of now, or even of before, would be a lack of accurate reporting. The FCC has seldom, in this lifetime, put the interests of the consumer first. Their complaint process is (and has been, for a long time) Sibylline, VERY time consuming, all designed to discourage the public from even trying.
Now? just worser, coming from worse.
And then there's this silly myth going around that every journalistic effort is required to present a "balanced" and unbiased viewpoint. Who decided that? Based on what criteria? What were they smoking, and how can I get some?
As for comparing to a work of fiction, since when is there anything wrong with pointing out how ridiculous are a person's actions? ... Oh right, since we decided that news reporting must be "balanced".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019