Trump's pick for FCC... A dead challenge... heartburn.

[Maxmars]

There were a slew of ways I could have tried to categorize this thread offering. 

I could have made it about "rampant capitalistic profiteering,"
it could have been about "commercial capturing of regulatory agencies,"
or maybe, "Trump's already enabling PITA ideas... to favor the "Big" sectors."

Perhaps it was possible to avoid all and any of those 'perspectives' but just going down the road of thought which include,
"makes no difference who is president, or what they might "say" they'll do."

Trump has selected someone he feels can lead the The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who had already "weighed in" on an issue while standing in opposition to a legal confrontation over at the FCC.  The short version is that someone determined that the "Industry standard" ideation about things like "data caps" and "usage-based charging" represented an abuse by the industry, to extract unreasonable profit from the public... after research and consideration the FCC brought it's remedy to the industry.  The industry collectively cried "Foul!" Mounting a cadre of lawyers to bring legal challenges to the effort.  Beginning from "The FCC has no jurisdiction!" to "It's "best" for the people."

The potential would-be new leader of the FCC will be of the "It's good for the people variety."

This seems to be on a trajectory with a similar timid and weak challenge to the industry narrative of "bandwidth" throttling... Doesn't that still happen, despite challenges?

It seems that every time the "FCC "is in play, I can anticipate me getting heartburn.  

They are so weak as to have become a simple tool for the gatekeepers.

The consumer gets to pretend the internet is a 'flow' of water in a pipe which the industry owns.  It's not.  There is no pipe.  They get to pretend that they are "controlling the flow" for the benefit of the consumers... as if there was such a thing a virtual scarcity.  But hey, that's just me.

I won't ever deny that I had come to feel a Trump presidency was preferable to a Harris... but this kowtowing to "big business" makes me uncomfortable...

Inspired from ArsTechnica: Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you

There are a number of other threads I have attempted dealing with the FCC, which I think is on a level with the "BLM (Bureau of Land Management)" of old.  It seems either deliberately neutered (as if it were just a "show" agency - a placeholder) or as complete infiltration operation by the commercial powers of the nation.

Thanks for listening to me think this through...

[UltraBudgie]

Under the smokescreen, it is about changing the internal model.

For years, the way ISPs have provided connectivity is through a network of contractual service level agreements with infrastructure owners. Those agreements are essentially, "you will receive all data we send to your customers as downloads, for free, and we will take all data your customers send as uploads, for a metered cost to you, and get it where it's going". The asymmetry of this is cost-balanced to provide a data package for the customer by the ISP. That's why so many connections have huge download speeds, but limited upload capacity.

This worked well for years, when most data collection and information value creation was done by collecting server-side metrics of end-user activity, for market and data reselling aggregation. The server would log requests, and back-end aggregate that, without using any of the customer's upload bandwidth to do so, other than for queries and tracking identifiers. The incentive for discouraging customer uploaded data was aligned, because the back end for metadata generation and incorporation into a larger information corpus would be overwhelmed with too much data.

That's changed, though, with the move to client-side rendering and improvements in endpoint telemetry collection, as well as things like face identification and voice recognition cued ai models. Those require much more upload bandwidth to get the collected data from the customer to the network, and that will be the case for at least the next 10-15 years, until endpoint capacity, storage, and delivery optimization balances things out.

So the incentives are misaligned at the infrastructure delivery level. The contractual incentive of discouraging upload needs inverted, within the structure of inter-isp business relationships. This should all happen "behind the scenes", and be presented to the customer as "improving quality". Arguments about net-neutrality need to be understood through this lens, otherwise they make no sense.

[jaded]

Oooo! Ooooo! 
Maybe this will help? The FCC instituted it's own internal judiciary to rule on it's regulations in complete disreguard of the established court systems. Completely illegal, but they've been getting away with it. 

Some supreme court decision in the last year applies to "laws/regulations made outside of ones made by the elected body responsible for such to be illegal". Woot! Woot!

It's somewhere in this podcast with Vivek Ramaswamy by Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw

[Maxmars]

Earlier reference: https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Data-Ca...hlight=FCC

[Maxmars]

Oooo! Ooooo! 
Maybe this will help? The FCC instituted it's own internal judiciary to rule on it's regulations in complete disreguard of the established court systems. Completely illegal, but they've been getting away with it. 

Some supreme court decision in the last year applies to "laws/regulations made outside of ones made by the elected body responsible for such to be illegal". Woot! Woot!

It's somewhere in this podcast with Vivek Ramaswamy by Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw

Were you referring to the "Chevron" principle?   https://denyignorance.com/Thread-The-Che...hlight=FCC

[jaded]

Didn't know there was a thread on it!
Whoops!!! (pink faced)
Scooted off to look at it cause I only would recognise the court case name. Have I mentioned ALL this political nuanced stuff is brand new to me? Like about a hr ago new? 

Cause MSM is a dumpster fire I've been zipping around YT watching interviews instead of Netflix. 
The longer form interviews give much more context, plus I can pause to go look stuff up. 
Please tell me you're familiar with the "stupid american meme"?
heheheheheh

[Maxmars]

Didn't know there was a thread on it!
Whoops!!! (pink faced)
Scooted off to look at it cause I only would recognise the court case name. Have I mentioned ALL this political nuanced stuff is brand new to me? Like about a hr ago new? 

Cause MSM is a dumpster fire I've been zipping around YT watching interviews instead of Netflix. 
The longer form interviews give much more context, plus I can pause to go look stuff up. 
Please tell me you're familiar with the "stupid american meme"?
heheheheheh

No worries at all!
Nothing wrong with that... there usually isn't much "interest" in the government agencies like the FCC, the FTC, BLM... (for an entire universe of reasons.)

Among them is the dryness of the subject matter... until the media gets involved... then the narratives on YouTube reproduce like a thunderstorm!   

(There's a doctoral thesis in the analysis of theory propagation in certain media channels.  - I don't know what's worse, the fact that people "claim" to have analyzed it already, or that they fail to recognize their own bias and virtue signaling... a patent disqualifier of 'dispassionate analysis. (Academia... am I right? )

Oh... excuse me... that must be the meds kicking in. 

[UltraBudgie]

So at the service level are there three issues? Let's use Twitter as an example.

1. What you see is skewed by a black box. It's filtered and prioritized to manipulated you. There's no way around that. What you contribute is reach-limited also, if it goes any where at all or isn't immediately bot-countered.

2. What you interact with is in every way collected as data, and resold and used to train models. Every click, every scroll, every second you dwell on a page. Those models can be used against you and others.

3. Who is who is non-determinable. There's no telling who is a bot or not, outside the island of approved blue checkmarks. False consensus abounds. Indicators of popularity such as likes and followers are a game. Bot armies swarm narrative control.

Can the FCC change this? Would they want to?

It is not Twitter alone that has these problems.


Edit: Worth noting that Brendan Carr wrote this: https://static.project2025.org/2025_Mand...TER-28.pdf which is more a formalization of the governing framework of these problems rather than a solution.

Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if theagency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite-based Internet providers