Expecting the Unexpected at the FCC | Hacker News Reader

Expecting the Unexpected at the FCC

ottsquared.com

20 pointsfreecasttv7 comments

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.

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.

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.

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-... or http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-...

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.

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.

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...

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com