Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   Unbelievable... but all too believable: Government regulators who killed net neutrality became top cable industry lobbyists   ( bgr.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, cable industry, telecommunications service, lobbyists, cable modem  
•       •       •

1929 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jan 2014 at 2:57 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-17 02:58:28 PM  
Corruption is the one crime I'd be willing to let carry the death penalty.
 
2014-01-17 02:59:39 PM  
thabto.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-17 03:00:27 PM  
I, a federal employee, hate this shiat. These are always very senior people who supposedly know better and have been promoted for their exceptional talents and dedication to their country. Every time one of these bozos does this shiat, I have to take yet another bullshiat ethics class(es) to ensure we powerless schmoes at the bottom of the ladder don't screw our country by helping out industry in any way.

Assholes
 
2014-01-17 03:02:03 PM  
senior people

did you see the boss of the epa guy that hadnt been to work in 2 years

thats what i think of when i hear senior people
 
2014-01-17 03:03:03 PM  
We could solve our energy crisis by creating a generator from that revolving door
 
2014-01-17 03:03:52 PM  
Would it be too much to ask of government to at least try to appear uncorrupted? A simple rule would help, any  government employee, elected or appointed official  should be barred from employment for a period of 3 years with any company or trade group they oversaw or regulated or wrote or provide input in the language of a bill while occupying that position of trust. It would also extend to the political intelligence  groups that use the lure of high salaries and bonus ( and perks and payments before leaving their position) to get sensitive and nonpublic information from congressional staffers to commit what is normally called insider trading but for some reason congress is still exempt from.
 
2014-01-17 03:06:11 PM  

Summoner101: We could solve our energy crisis by creating a generator from that revolving door


Pfft.  Some GOP lawmaker would put that out for bid and get private industry to run it.

/then again, if they did that, the door would likely be broken and nobody could go through it
//maybe it isn't a bad plan after all..please, proceed
 
2014-01-17 03:06:18 PM  
What is wrong with letting corporate America control the information you access? I see absolutely no downside to this.

\Interview availability 9pm -10pm Mon-Fri
 
2014-01-17 03:10:48 PM  
This is my shocked face. :-|
 
2014-01-17 03:11:17 PM  
Doublemonkeyfarkdamn! Dammitdammitsonovabiatch!! GAWDEMMITSOMUCH!!!

ikanreed: Corruption is the one crime I'd be willing to let carry the death penalty.


I'm okay with this.
 
2014-01-17 03:16:04 PM  
You know what would make this kind of thing happen more often? Term limits.
 
2014-01-17 03:20:09 PM  
Sadly, we've become so jaded as a nation that shiat like this isn't a scandal anymore; it's standard operating procedure. What stuns us is when someone does the right thing, or shows some integrity, or passes on the chance to be a giant douche.
 
2014-01-17 03:26:31 PM  
Corruption is ruining my interwebs.  How does the US avoid making it to the top of the corrupt countries list?
 
2014-01-17 03:26:34 PM  
I, for one, cannot wait until the internet resembles the glorious landmark of capitalism that is cable TV.

Seriously, does anyone think the internet would be where it is today if ISPs in the mid-90s got to decide, well, anything?
 
2014-01-17 03:31:54 PM  
There should be no transfer from regulator to lobby group. Period.
 
2014-01-17 03:32:00 PM  
Wouldn't it be great if we stopped saying that we have the Greatest System of Government Ever Divised TM and actually started trying to fix some of the problems with it.

The current system is geared so that it actively encourages and rewards corruption and creating harmful outputs. It's a bad system and it needs changing.
 
2014-01-17 03:32:16 PM  

bindlestiff2600: senior people

did you see the boss of the epa guy that hadnt been to work in 2 years

thats what i think of when i hear senior people


I think you mean:

Top...men...
 
2014-01-17 03:36:41 PM  

LarryDan43: You know what would make this kind of thing happen more often? Term limits.


This is about career positions, not elected positions.
 
2014-01-17 03:37:21 PM  
Article is sensationalist.

Net neutrality isn't dead yet, even if the writing is on the wall.  (I'm too ignorant to say either way.)
 
2014-01-17 03:38:12 PM  
Al Franken will go that way in the end too. Hollywood left bought out the Democrats in this case.
 
2014-01-17 03:41:44 PM  
the corporations who own us always win
 
2014-01-17 03:42:14 PM  
Sometimes I wonder if this isn't the ultimate political long game in history. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, there were many cases of policies being initiated that would encourage blacks to move away from where they weren't wanted. When people read things like this we get the typical reactionary responses like, "That's it! I'm moving overseas," and little comes of it. But, there are people who've been debating whether or not they'd be happier living outside the U.S. that see things like this as one more reason to consider it.
What if the plan is to get all the critical thinkers to leave, so that what's left is an apathetic, poorly informed (and comfortable with that), easily manipulated populace that won't question what the government does.
 
2014-01-17 03:42:58 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Al Franken will go that way in the end too. Hollywood left bought out the Democrats in this case.



da fuq?
 
2014-01-17 03:50:42 PM  
In the United States the corporations own the people who are supposed to be regulating them? No shiat.
Where's the Obvious tag, subby?
 
2014-01-17 03:52:42 PM  
I would love to see some federal judge argue the point that, if they successfully win in their fight against network neutrality, the cable companies have given up the common carrier defence and thus their senior executives will be held criminally liable for any child pornography which shows up on their network.
 
MFK
2014-01-17 03:53:01 PM  
There should be a law that if you take a position as a federal regulator in any industry that you will NEVER be allowed to take a job in the industry which you formerly regulated. Not a 5 year grace period but a lifetime ban.

Violators would be subject to no less than 10 years in prison and massive fines.
 
2014-01-17 03:53:15 PM  
This much 'is' true, the corporations always win.

That said, the 'corporations' are not a monolithic organization, you know.

Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google.  It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.

Now, allowing the cable companies to jack prices up on people who use large amounts of data would totally screw Google over.

What I'm saying is that the next generation of mega-corps are not necessarily in the same camp as the Cable Companies.

Of course, all 'we' can really do at this point is cheer from the sidelines and hope that the likes of Google can successfully pimpslap the cable company lobbyists down.
 
2014-01-17 03:53:57 PM  

Blues_X: Nemo's Brother: Al Franken will go that way in the end too. Hollywood left bought out the Democrats in this case.


da fuq?


Well, you see, both sides are bad, apparently...
 
2014-01-17 03:54:43 PM  

geek_mars: Sometimes I wonder if this isn't the ultimate political long game in history. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, there were many cases of policies being initiated that would encourage blacks to move away from where they weren't wanted. When people read things like this we get the typical reactionary responses like, "That's it! I'm moving overseas," and little comes of it. But, there are people who've been debating whether or not they'd be happier living outside the U.S. that see things like this as one more reason to consider it.
What if the plan is to get all the critical thinkers to leave, so that what's left is an apathetic, poorly informed (and comfortable with that), easily manipulated populace that won't question what the government does.


If?
 
2014-01-17 03:55:33 PM  

edmo: I, a federal employee, hate this shiat. These are always very senior people who supposedly know better and have been promoted for their exceptional talents and dedication to their country. Every time one of these bozos does this shiat, I have to take yet another bullshiat ethics class(es) to ensure we powerless schmoes at the bottom of the ladder don't screw our country by helping out industry in any way.

Assholes


The first rule of business ethics is that there is no business ethics.
 
2014-01-17 03:55:35 PM  

palelizard: Doublemonkeyfarkdamn! Dammitdammitsonovabiatch!! GAWDEMMITSOMUCH!!!

ikanreed: Corruption is the one crime I'd be willing to let carry the death penalty.

I'm okay with this.


As long as we use a catapult or guillotine I'm OK with this too.
 
2014-01-17 03:57:40 PM  

LarryDan43: You know what would make this kind of thing happen more often? Term limits.


You know why, specifically, the Framers only put term limits on only ONE of three three branches? Because "institutional knowledge" is a thing.

// Hamilton/Madison do a great job of explaining why in the one case, and why not in the others
// Federalist 53, brah
 
2014-01-17 03:58:13 PM  
Damn you Snowden!!!
 
2014-01-17 03:59:39 PM  

geek_mars: Sometimes I wonder if this isn't the ultimate political long game in history. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, there were many cases of policies being initiated that would encourage blacks to move away from where they weren't wanted. When people read things like this we get the typical reactionary responses like, "That's it! I'm moving overseas," and little comes of it. But, there are people who've been debating whether or not they'd be happier living outside the U.S. that see things like this as one more reason to consider it.
What if the plan is to get all the critical thinkers to leave, so that what's left is an apathetic, poorly informed (and comfortable with that), easily manipulated populace that won't question what the government does.


No.

You seem to be under the impression that there are powerful people with long stretching plans connected to legions of experts and battalions of foot soldiers.

Nope. Just a bunch of corrupt assholes. That's it.

No one has a great reaching plan for the USA. Our government is just a lot of people with grand plans for that yaht, and 2nd/3rd home and that car and the fat bank account and the high class call girl on the side.

I used to think it went beyond that, but the more I know and see, the more I'm certain there is no great intelligence. There is no "them". Just an organization filled with individuals of low ethic out for themselves.

It's not a grand conspiracy. It's a big giant game of "get mine"
and you and I aint allowed to play.
 
2014-01-17 04:01:06 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You know why, specifically, the Framers only put term limits on NOT ONE of three three branches?


// stupid 22nd Amendment
 
2014-01-17 04:04:56 PM  

Infernalist: This much 'is' true, the corporations always win.

That said, the 'corporations' are not a monolithic organization, you know.

Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google.  It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.

Now, allowing the cable companies to jack prices up on people who use large amounts of data would totally screw Google over.

What I'm saying is that the next generation of mega-corps are not necessarily in the same camp as the Cable Companies.

Of course, all 'we' can really do at this point is cheer from the sidelines and hope that the likes of Google can successfully pimpslap the cable company lobbyists down.


All Google has to do is publicly announce they will completely blacklist all services (Gmail, Maps, Search, Android services, etc) to any ISP that does not formally implement a Network Neutrality policy.  Add in Facebook, Netflix, Apple, Twitter, and a few other major content companies, and the ISPs will have no meaningful product to sell their customers at any price.  At this point, the content providers are holding all the chips in the game.  Let the ISPs explain to their customers *why* they can't watch movies, use their phones, chat or email with their friends.
 
2014-01-17 04:07:09 PM  
Still not as bad as Meredith Attwell Baker. Colin Powell's kid mention in the article had the decency to wait 3 years to leave his post and didn't get the lobbyist job until 9 years after this little switcheroo. Baker waited 4 months between saying Comcast buying out NBC wouldn't present concerns to quitting before her term was up to take the job of "Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs" for Comcast.

Meanwhile, the most common reaction is blaming Obama for appointing her or calling attention to her being a Republican who was a big Bush backer as if that's the real heart of the matter. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2014-01-17 04:07:53 PM  

Infernalist: Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google. It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.


pretty sure that's just a one time price. you purchase it for 35 (25 if you look around for a deal) and you're done. basically all it is is a wireless receiver. it's not that impressive. I'd much rather just hook up a mini pc to the tv and use a tablet or phone for a remote. that way it's fully functional.
 
2014-01-17 04:10:26 PM  
its the circle of things.

step 1: volunteer for some assholes campaign. meet rich assholes
step 2: get hired on a campaign next cycle and raise boat loads of cash from those assholes. pass them insider tips then can make money back on.
step3: get a nice political appointment
step 4: cozy up to lobbyist and the industry you should be supervising. do as they ask
step 5: get hired by them when your appointment is up
step 6: get paid big bucks to tell the new people in step 4 that they can have your job in 5 years if they can help you now.
step 7: get tired of going to work. quit job and let the folks from the previous step move up. start donating some of your fortune to people still in step 2. dump your money all over to take advantage of your connections and tips on what is going on.
 
2014-01-17 04:16:52 PM  

Morpher59: Infernalist: This much 'is' true, the corporations always win.

That said, the 'corporations' are not a monolithic organization, you know.

Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google.  It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.

Now, allowing the cable companies to jack prices up on people who use large amounts of data would totally screw Google over.

What I'm saying is that the next generation of mega-corps are not necessarily in the same camp as the Cable Companies.

Of course, all 'we' can really do at this point is cheer from the sidelines and hope that the likes of Google can successfully pimpslap the cable company lobbyists down.

All Google has to do is publicly announce they will completely blacklist all services (Gmail, Maps, Search, Android services, etc) to any ISP that does not formally implement a Network Neutrality policy.  Add in Facebook, Netflix, Apple, Twitter, and a few other major content companies, and the ISPs will have no meaningful product to sell their customers at any price.  At this point, the content providers are holding all the chips in the game.  Let the ISPs explain to their customers *why* they can't watch movies, use their phones, chat or email with their friends.


it won't be like that. they will tell the big guys they just want to limit speeds on torrents etc. in fact they want to advertise facebook, netflix etc as partners and that highspeed connections are gauranteed for their customers. fast forward five years, now they want a small fee to remain a partner, or maybe in hulu, netflix etc they even offer to pay a small fee per customer to bundle it in to the inet service! before you know it we have a clusterfark of some providers paying them, them paying some providers and jacking up internet rates to cover it etc. either way the customers lose their options and their internet experience is decided by the cable company. I don't see this as a big change, just a bunch of tiny ones over time.
 
2014-01-17 04:18:04 PM  

bluenovaman: palelizard: Doublemonkeyfarkdamn! Dammitdammitsonovabiatch!! GAWDEMMITSOMUCH!!!

ikanreed: Corruption is the one crime I'd be willing to let carry the death penalty.

I'm okay with this.

As long as we use a catapult or guillotine I'm OK with this too.


Or both...I love watching them pumpkin launch competitions...
 
2014-01-17 04:26:32 PM  
in 20 years America will have worse internet infrastructure than Africa
 
2014-01-17 04:32:39 PM  

AdamK: in 20 years America will have worse internet infrastructure than Africa


Oh, no. The physical infrastructure will be fine. The service offered over the infrastructure will largely resemble modern cable TV, with many of the "walled garden" aspects of old-school AOL.
 
2014-01-17 04:38:43 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Al Franken will go that way in the end too. Hollywood left bought out the Democrats in this case.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-01-17 04:40:16 PM  

NickelP: it won't be like that. they will tell the big guys they just want to limit speeds on torrents etc. in fact they want to advertise facebook, netflix etc as partners and that highspeed connections are gauranteed for their customers. fast forward five years, now they want a small fee to remain a partner, or maybe in hulu, netflix etc they even offer to pay a small fee per customer to bundle it in to the inet service! before you know it we have a clusterfark of some providers paying them, them paying some providers and jacking up internet rates to cover it etc. either way the customers lose their options and their internet experience is decided by the cable company. I don't see this as a big change, just a bunch of tiny ones over time.


That's exactly what happened when Congress passed the Communications Act of 1992.

Broadcasters lobbied Washington stating that if a local cable company did NOT carry their signal they would be out of business because most of their viewers subscribed to cable and did not have an outside antenna that would enable them to receive their signal. The broadcast stations then took it one step further by lobbying for RETRANSMISSION CONSENT. If the broadcast station elected the MUST CARRY options, the cable operator would be obligated to carry the signal and no payment would be required. With the RETRANSMISSION consent option, the station would have the right to request payment for its signal before a cable company could receive the off air signal and deliver it to its subscribers.

The broadcast stations that consisted of shopping channels, ethic channels, infomercial channels, they  elected MUST CARRY that required no payment, but forces the cable companies to carry them. ALL of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) elected RETRANSMISSION CONSENT. This is the opposite of what they said they would do when they lobbied Congress.

As soon as the Communications Act was in place, all cable companies were notified by the broadcasters that to continue carriage of their signal they would be required to pay for the signal. They would arbitrarily come up with an absurd amount for continued carriage of their signal OR the cable operator could avoid this charge by adding their new Satellite services that required a monthly payment. This created a situation that added dozens of channels that had little or no value to the cable companies channel line-up. The cable companies had to agree or lose the right to carry the Major Network signals.

It will not surprise me at ALL to see something similar in regards to "certain" Internet sites or data types.  Whatever brings in the Benjamins.
 
2014-01-17 05:04:21 PM  

NickelP: Morpher59: Infernalist: This much 'is' true, the corporations always win.

That said, the 'corporations' are not a monolithic organization, you know.

Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google.  It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.

Now, allowing the cable companies to jack prices up on people who use large amounts of data would totally screw Google over.

What I'm saying is that the next generation of mega-corps are not necessarily in the same camp as the Cable Companies.

Of course, all 'we' can really do at this point is cheer from the sidelines and hope that the likes of Google can successfully pimpslap the cable company lobbyists down.

All Google has to do is publicly announce they will completely blacklist all services (Gmail, Maps, Search, Android services, etc) to any ISP that does not formally implement a Network Neutrality policy.  Add in Facebook, Netflix, Apple, Twitter, and a few other major content companies, and the ISPs will have no meaningful product to sell their customers at any price.  At this point, the content providers are holding all the chips in the game.  Let the ISPs explain to their customers *why* they can't watch movies, use their phones, chat or email with their friends.

it won't be like that. they will tell the big guys they just want to limit speeds on torrents etc. in fact they want to advertise facebook, netflix etc as partners and that highspeed connections are gauranteed for their customers. fast forward five years, now they want a small fee to remain a partner, or maybe in hulu, netflix etc they even offer to pay a small fee per customer to bundle it in to the inet service! before you know it we have a clusterfark of some providers paying them, them paying some providers and jacking up internet rates to cover it etc. either way the customers lose their options and their internet experience is decided by the cable company. I don't see th ...


The tech companies all saw what happened to cable and know what will ultimately happen to them if they play along with it now - they've been pushing for net neutrality all along.  They're neither blind nor stupid. Why would they help to create a situation where they would inevitably pay fees that they don't pay now? Right now they have the opportunity to kill this in the cradle, and have the war chest to pull it off.
 
2014-01-17 05:17:22 PM  

Morpher59: All Google has to do is publicly announce they will completely blacklist all services (Gmail, Maps, Search, Android services, etc) to any ISP that does not formally implement a Network Neutrality policy. Add in Facebook, Netflix, Apple, Twitter, and a few other major content companies, and the ISPs will have no meaningful product to sell their customers at any price. At this point, the content providers are holding all the chips in the game.


I really don't think so.
The U.S. is a huge market for all those companies, and all of them have huge businesses to run, people to pay, etc. Completely suspending access to hundreds of millions of people would deal an enormous financial blow to any of those companies, because their revenues come largely from advertising dollars that all those services generate.  ISP's, on the other hand, could still offer mail service and (inferior) search engines and maps and such, and they also have revenues from things like cell phone service, co-location / fiber access, television (U-Verse, FiOS, cable) -- I think they'd weather Google's content withdrawal better than Google would.

What Google CAN do is build out their Google Fiber network and threaten to steal all their customers, which I hope they do, even if only to keep these f***ing ISPs in line.  That will take time, though.
 
2014-01-17 05:26:34 PM  

Infernalist: Consider this: Chromecast is being pushed hard by Google. It's that nifty thing that lets you put your computer-streamed stuff up onto your TV for about $35 a month.


It's not a service, I think it's basically a Wi-Fi transceiver that plugs into an HDMI port.
It's for TVs that don't already have Wi-Fi access built in, along with some software that makes streaming easy.
Like AppleTV, but without the ridiculous proprietary AirPlay protocol.
 
2014-01-17 05:28:44 PM  
And all shall be unmade with the utterance from the FCC: You are a common carrier.
 
2014-01-17 05:48:21 PM  

eurotrader: Would it be too much to ask of government to at least try to appear uncorrupted? A simple rule would help, any  government employee, elected or appointed official  should be barred from employment for a period of 3 years with any company or trade group they oversaw or regulated or wrote or provide input in the language of a bill while occupying that position of trust. It would also extend to the political intelligence  groups that use the lure of high salaries and bonus ( and perks and payments before leaving their position) to get sensitive and nonpublic information from congressional staffers to commit what is normally called insider trading but for some reason congress is still exempt from.


But of course that would require an act of congress...
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report