how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
679 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| There are some non-partisan groups that agree with FCC order quote:
Of course everyone but the baby bells is arguing that this "regulatory underbrush" was providing data that would, were the FCC to actually make decisions based on data and not party or corporate loyalty, prove useful.
Not everyone:
»www.marketwatch.com/news/story/i···ist=hppr
The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) applauds the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) announcement Saturday that it will abandon the outdated and discriminatory ARMIS reporting requirements.
In comments filed with the Commission last week, director of the IPI Center for Technology Freedom Bartlett Cleland said these regulatory requirements applied only to a tiny portion of the communications industry, distorted the marketplace with irrelevant data and hindered the deployment of the best products and services to consumers.
Regulatory policy should be technologically neutral, says Cleland, and by ending the requirements for ARMIS reporting, the Commission will level the playing field for those in the marketplace.
When the ARMIS reports were first created they were said to be temporary, and yet, 18 years later, they continued to be required for only a handful of those who competed in the wireline communications marketplace.
"Even if this information had been collected broadly from the vast and rapidly changing communications industry, the fact is that the goal in collecting the information had long since been achieved," said Cleland.
In addition, both the states and FCC itself broadly collected similar data already, and the free market also already provided a more consumer friendly and accessible report. The Institute for Policy Innovation is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Dallas, Texas.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
4 edits | said by fAcEtIOUs: quote:
Of course everyone but the baby bells is arguing that this "regulatory underbrush" was providing data that would, were the FCC to actually make decisions based on data and not party or corporate loyalty, prove useful.
Not everyone: » www.marketwatch.com/news/story/i···ist=hpprThe Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) applauds the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) announcement Saturday that it will abandon the outdated and discriminatory ARMIS reporting requirements.
In comments filed with the Commission last week, director of the IPI Center for Technology Freedom Bartlett Cleland said these regulatory requirements applied only to a tiny portion of the communications industry, distorted the marketplace with irrelevant data and hindered the deployment of the best products and services to consumers.
Regulatory policy should be technologically neutral, says Cleland, and by ending the requirements for ARMIS reporting, the Commission will level the playing field for those in the marketplace.
When the ARMIS reports were first created they were said to be temporary, and yet, 18 years later, they continued to be required for only a handful of those who competed in the wireline communications marketplace.
"Even if this information had been collected broadly from the vast and rapidly changing communications industry, the fact is that the goal in collecting the information had long since been achieved," said Cleland.
In addition, both the states and FCC itself broadly collected similar data already, and the free market also already provided a more consumer friendly and accessible report. The Institute for Policy Innovation is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Dallas, Texas. »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···novation
quote:
The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an eight on a scale of one to eight. [2] (Pdf)
Why are you keep spreading your LIES, TJunk?
»www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf···b016.htm
quote:
Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."
»www.prwatch.org/node/4298
The Institute for Policy Innovation's Peter Ferrara also wrote "pay for play" columns for Abramoff, but, unlike Bandow, he isn't remorseful. "I've done it in the past, and I'll do it in the future," Ferrara said. Ferrara's boss also says the arrangement isn't "wrong or unethical." None of the columns contained any disclosure. BusinessWeek noted that the columns "provided a seemingly independent validation of the arguments the Abramoff team were using to try to sway Congressional action."
About the level of corruption: »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···_Funding
Payola-world: »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···t_Payola
There you go - this is just another typical BS-spewing, indie-faking hardcore neocon-Republican-sponsored lying sack of shit lobby group... now wonder they applaud everything without a single brain cell that goes towards unchecked corporate power.
--
said by bicker:Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. | |
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Bartlett Cleland worked for John Ashcroft and then Grover Norquist. I suppose on some planet, he could be considered nonpartison, unfortunately, not this one. Here's a cut and paste from Source Watch:
"Bartlett D. Cleland grew up in Illinois and graduated from Millikin University (IL) with a B.S. in philosophy and business administration. He received his MBA from St. Louis University and his J.D. from the St. Louis University School of Law. Bartlett Cleland is admitted to the Missouri bar.
After his study he worked for Lee Hecht Harrison as a consultant for executive outplacement. In 1994 he was a research assistant in the 'Ashcroft for Senate campaign', and in 1995 he worked for the then Missouri Senator John Ashcroft. He was the Senator's technology counsel from 1996 to 1998 where he worked with Paul Clement. Then he started working for Americans for Tax Reform and for a year and a half he was Grover Norquist's technology and policy counsel. Since 2000 Bartlett Cleland was the Director of the Center for Technology Freedom, at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). The 'Center for Technology Freedom' was created when Bartlett Cleland joined IPI. [1] Kelli Emerick is a Research Fellow at this center." | |
| said by Mr Truthiness :
Bartlett Cleland worked for John Ashcroft and then Grover Norquist. I suppose on some planet, he could be considered nonpartison, unfortunately, not this one. Here's a cut and paste from Source Watch:
"Bartlett D. Cleland grew up in Illinois and graduated from Millikin University (IL) with a B.S. in philosophy and business administration. He received his MBA from St. Louis University and his J.D. from the St. Louis University School of Law. Bartlett Cleland is admitted to the Missouri bar.
After his study he worked for Lee Hecht Harrison as a consultant for executive outplacement. In 1994 he was a research assistant in the 'Ashcroft for Senate campaign', and in 1995 he worked for the then Missouri Senator John Ashcroft. He was the Senator's technology counsel from 1996 to 1998 where he worked with Paul Clement. Then he started working for Americans for Tax Reform and for a year and a half he was Grover Norquist's technology and policy counsel. Since 2000 Bartlett Cleland was the Director of the Center for Technology Freedom, at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). The 'Center for Technology Freedom' was created when Bartlett Cleland joined IPI. [1] Kelli Emerick is a Research Fellow at this center."
Seems well qualified to comment on technology issues and the FCC.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
 BoogeymanDrive it like you stole itPremium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL | The Pope is well qualified to speak about Catholosism, doesnt mean he is unbiased though.
--
Im Your Boogeyman, Thats What I Am | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mr Truthiness :
Bartlett Cleland worked for John Ashcroft and then Grover Norquist. I suppose on some planet, he could be considered nonpartison, unfortunately, not this one. Here's a cut and paste from Source Watch:
"Bartlett D. Cleland grew up in Illinois and graduated from Millikin University (IL) with a B.S. in philosophy and business administration. He received his MBA from St. Louis University and his J.D. from the St. Louis University School of Law. Bartlett Cleland is admitted to the Missouri bar.
After his study he worked for Lee Hecht Harrison as a consultant for executive outplacement. In 1994 he was a research assistant in the 'Ashcroft for Senate campaign', and in 1995 he worked for the then Missouri Senator John Ashcroft. He was the Senator's technology counsel from 1996 to 1998 where he worked with Paul Clement. Then he started working for Americans for Tax Reform and for a year and a half he was Grover Norquist's technology and policy counsel. Since 2000 Bartlett Cleland was the Director of the Center for Technology Freedom, at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). The 'Center for Technology Freedom' was created when Bartlett Cleland joined IPI. [1] Kelli Emerick is a Research Fellow at this center."
Seems well qualified to comment on technology issues and the FCC. ROFLMA is that all? 
Once again, you just embarrassed yourself, no matter how you try to sit it out in full silence. F
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mr Truthiness :
.. with a B.S. in philosophy and business administration. He received his MBA from St. Louis University and his J.D. from the St. Louis University School of Law....
Seems well qualified to comment on technology issues and the FCC. yes, philosophy and business administration provide an excellent background on technology issues; much better than say, telecommunications or computer science or engineering or one of those other boring majors. | | |
|
| reply to kamm
Re: There are some non-partisan groups that agree with FCC order said by kamm  There you go - this is just another typical BS-spewing, indie-faking hardcore neocon-Republican-sponsored lying sack of shit lobby group... now wonder they applaud everything without a single brain cell that goes towards unchecked corporate power.
[/BQUOTE : Neo-con...did you learn a new word? Why is it you think half of this country has "Neo-con" beliefs? (Hint: it's got to do with the children) Do you believe Move-on.org is a liberal sack of shit lobby group? If not, then your just as biased as you accuse others of being! | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:The Institute for Policy Innovation is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Dallas, Texas. LOL. Maybe "Dependent, for-profits, partisan private lobbyist organization based in Dallas, Texas." would be a lot more accurate....
This is bad for consumers.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
