Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications

Biden FCC Nominee Slams Critics, Says ISPs Shouldn't Get To Choose Regulators (arstechnica.com) 64

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
President Biden's long-stalled nominee to the Federal Communications Commission fired back at her critics today, saying that the telecom industry shouldn't be allowed to choose its own regulators. From a report: "I believe deeply that regulated entities should not choose their regulator," Sohn said in prepared testimony for a Senate Commerce Committee nomination hearing today. "Unfortunately, that is the exact intent of the past 15 months of false and misleading attacks on my record and my character. My industry opponents have hidden behind dark money groups and surrogates because they fear a pragmatic, pro-competition, pro-consumer policymaker who will support policies that will bring more, faster, and lower-priced broadband and new voices to your constituents."

Biden first nominated Sohn, a longtime consumer advocate and former FCC official, on October 26, 2021. The full Senate never voted on whether to confirm Sohn as an FCC commissioner, and Biden renominated her last month. With the FCC deadlocked at two Democrats and two Republicans, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel hasn't been able to pursue any major regulation of an industry that was deregulated during the Trump era. "The FCC has been without a majority for the entirety of the Biden administration -- over two years -- at a time when closing the digital divide is front and center," Sohn's testimony said. "There are too many important issues in front of the commission to lack a full complement of members, including improving the broadband maps, fixing the Universal Service Fund, closing the homework gap, ensuring fair access to broadband, and protecting consumers' privacy. Americans deserve a full FCC where I could play a critical role in addressing every one of these, but time is of the essence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biden FCC Nominee Slams Critics, Says ISPs Shouldn't Get To Choose Regulators More

Biden FCC Nominee Slams Critics, Says ISPs Shouldn't Get To Choose Regulators

Comments Filter:

  • Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 )

    Make no mistake .. Republicans suck, no question about that. It's not even a debatable thing at this point. The last good Republican was John McCain, RIP. Anyway, Republicans suck especially on things like net neutrality, wherein they said that ISPs should be allowed to decide what websites you can and cannot access. That was before they realized corporations could actually act against Republican nuts. That was before they perceived themselves as censored. However, we can't let the pendulum swing the other

    • Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @01:22PM (#63292451)

      Both sides suck depending on the issue, but yes most republicans were on the wrong side of the net neutrality debate. I suspect that mostly boils down to many of them skewing older and just not understanding technology, so they do the kneejerk "regulation = bad" reaction.

      This is why to some degree bureaucratic agencies can work better than elected officials on certain things. Its better than the FAA be ran by people who are hired for aviation knowledge than elected based on popularity (ie, in many places you have sheriff's who are sometimes elected with no law enforcement background or coroners who are elected with no medical background).

      By the same token though that idea of rules made by appointees rather than elected officials is very, very anti-democratic.

      At the end of the day, fair government is just a hard problem.

      • Republicans say a lot about the "free market" and competition but certainly do try and stop any attempts. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        (ie, in many places you have sheriff's who are sometimes elected with no law enforcement background or coroners who are elected with no medical background).

        Some places even have JUDGES elected who have no legal background or training. Yes, the person who's deciding your fate may never have been an attorney and had to face real judges before becoming one themselves.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      how the fuck does this absolute flamebait troll get modded +4 insightful? jesus christ this place has fallen.

      • Because not everybody here believes it was trolling or flamebait?
        Just saying...

      • Was the statement false?

        • Re:Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)

          by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:39PM (#63292829) Homepage
          Only if you really believe that all Republicans suck. If you're both honest and objective, you'll know that not all politicians (regardless of party) suck, are ignorant asses or are corrupt. That means that there are honest Republican politicians who legitimately want what's best for the country. And, it's also true that there are politicians who are everything you hate, and some of them are Democrats. Of course, in order to understand that, you have to be willing to judge them by how they act, not what party they belong to.

          • Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)

            by OfMiceAndMenus ( 4553885 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @06:07PM (#63293529)

            Only if you really believe that all Republicans suck.

            If they don't want people to believe this, they should stop sucking. If you name a single non-suck thing republicans have done in the last 6 years, I'll be happy to tell you in detail why it's bullshit and hurts the country and its people.

            there are honest Republican politicians who legitimately want what's best for the country

            That's a thing that doesn't exist now. Maybe it did when McCain was alive, but nobody right now has a proper plan or agenda that doesn't consist of "Libs bad, stop them". Half of the republicans are in "Act like chimpanzee and throw feces" mode. The rest are just biding their time and trying to amass as much kickback loot and plunder as they can before they stop running or get voted out.

            some of them are Democrats

            Well, that's true. Democrats aren't a good party, they're just much better than the alternatives.

            you have to be willing to judge them by how they act, not what party they belong to

            How's that working with the blonde retarded howler monkey and FloridaPedo Matt screaming across the room at the SotU? The current roster is a complete and total waste of oxygen. Lots of trees to apologize to.

            • [sigh] (Score:2, Insightful)

              by tiqui ( 1024021 )

              Your brain-dead challenge forces me to do what I hate having to do: cite the Bad Orange Man (and then get accused of being a Trump fanatic) as the example of something... but since YOU framed the anti-Republican ranting and raving with a 6-year limit on non-sucky things, this is on YOUR terms.

              Within the last 6 years, a Republican President named Trump:

              1. presided over low interest rates

              2. presided over low inflation rates

              3. presided over low energy prices and energy independence for the USA

              4. presided over

              • You forgot to add, pandered to rocket boy of North Korea. Got bamboozled by a virus. Got bamboozled by his own staff. Destabilized and sold out the economy for short term fake prosperity. Set race relations back by 50 years. Increased homicide rates. Put humans in cages. Reinstated torture culture. Gaslighted 49% of the population into distrust of various institutions. Instigated disastrous withdrawal of Afghanistan then handed over mess to Biden. Gave Putin free reign, not to mention the best blow job a ma

                • Poe's law applies here. I can't tell if you are so dumb that you missed the point of the post you are replying to, or if you're just parodying it.

              • > Personally, If I have to choose between parties, I will choose the one that opposed slavery, opposed segregation, and currently supports individual rights and free speech (the GOP) over the party that owned the slaves, wrote and enforced every single damnable Jim Crow law, founded the KKK, craves total government control over everything and everybody, finds the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" that is obsolete, and demands the right to take anything you have and prevent you from saying wh

            • All your screed shows me is that you are heavily prejudiced against anybody who's opinions don't match yours. Try on opening your mind up to the possibility that somebody else might be right.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ediron2 ( 246908 )

          what is there to call false? A half dozen sentences about Republican suckitude, then an utterly-unsubstantiated blanket 'but Dems do too'. It's empty. NOT A BIT OF SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT. WTactualF? Then, this epitome of ludicrosity burps out 'so maybe deadlock (which includes NOT DOING A FUCKING THING ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY) is a good thing.

          Srsly, stupidest comment of the day, and you're defending it without substance, too. "Was it false?" Hell, what's that matter -- let's try: could either of you state

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KlomDark ( 6370 )

            Methinks your bubble is running out of oxygen. Maybe you should step out of it for a while?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ediron2 ( 246908 )

      Embarrassingly dumb. You made a case against republicans, then stated without any backing that the Dems are just as bad, then leapt over to 'so maybe (love that milquetoast word) deadlock is good'.

      Fuck, no. Deadlock on Net Neutrality and a dozen other comm-related sellout positions of existing FCC chairs isn't good. And my socks are better at rhetoric. Be ashamed.

  • Senate is still a (minor) majority for democrats. So why blame the republicans if they can't get her approved?

    Is it because the public won't act because she can't get democrats to approve her, so they have to blame republicans?

    • Re:A democrat majority can't vote her in? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @01:39PM (#63292509)
      Things get goofy when it comes to this... a lone hold out (or two) can stall everything. Manchin only runs as a Democratic candidate because he cynically saw he could get enough R votes combines with D votes. Sinema was Green Party but realized she'd never get elected as a Green so switch parties long enough to get a Senate gig. She's technically (I) now, but both of them take checks since the US Supreme Court basically legalized open bribery. I mean, it was considered in bad taste when the Republican Leader was handing out checks on the House Floor for votes. After it caused him to become a focus of interest he stopped the practice.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Of course he still had the gall to complain, after handing out checks to get pork, about those durty demonrats putting pork in bills.

      Later the US Supreme Court effectively made bribery legal so corporations wouldn't have to hand out checks in public.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Senate Democrats are historically skittish about any rule changes. So even the nominee's supporters might not be willing to do what's necessary to get her approved.
        Translation, after getting burned badly by changing the rules for judges, and being warned it would not turn out well for them.

  • Lots of opposition from Red and Blue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @01:36PM (#63292483) Journal

    "Opposition to the nomination of Sohn, a longtime advocate for net neutrality, has come from a number of quarters, including the Directors Guild of America. The group urged senators to vote down Sohn's nomination due to her 'hostility towards copyright law.' Sohn was previously on the board of Locast, a defunct service that rebroadcast over-the-air TV broadcast signals via the internet. She said she'd recuse herself from issues concerning retransmission consent and broadcast copyright.

    In confirmation hearings, Republicans portrayed Sohn as an extreme partisan. She hit back at those assertions, arguing that she had been subject to "unrelenting, unfair and outright false criticism and scrutiny."

    Source: https://www.engadget.com/senat... [engadget.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cats-paw ( 34890 )

      Well anyone in the press has to both-sides the shit out of anything to appear "impartial".

      Meanwhile she was criticized for her hostility to copyright ?

      Not really clear that would qualify as opposition from Blue.

      I for one am hostile to copyright too so I'm all for her being nominated.

  • It is generally a bad idea for those being regulated to pick the regulators. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. The FDA is the classic case with the expert advisory panels made up of academics, who are getting huge grants from the drug companies being regulated. The other side of this is that it is equally bad for the regulators not to have a good knowledge of what they are doing. So, you get caught in a Catch-22, where the only qualified people are compromised. All you can do is the best you can

  • "Acting" (Score:3)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:02PM (#63292925)
    I thought the problem of confirmation was settled 4 years ago? If as President you can't get your preferred nominee confirmed, just designate them as the "acting" official, with full authority.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/... [www.cbc.ca]

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]

    https://time.com/5875182/tata-... [time.com]

    https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09... [npr.org]

  • Always hire the fox to guard the henhouse. Always!

Slashdot Top Deals

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Close