|reply to roc5955 |
Re: Federale Communista Communique
said by roc5955:While I agree that corporations frequently influence regulation, often to the detriment of the intent of the regulators...I would also add that "the community" provides non-productive influence as well.
I believe it should be more like "Corporatista," because he is not catering to the community, but rather the corporations.
The real problem with regulation in this country is twofold
1. Regulators often don't well understand the technology for which they are making regulatory decisions.
2. Regulators are either elected positions or they are appointed by people in elected positions who have a vested interest in keeping those that put them into power fat, dumb and happy.
The result is that regulators end up reacting to individuals or corporations who are unreasonably screaming like Verruca Salt, "I want it and I want it now!" instead of making informed and well though decisions.
Is it any wonder that the system is screwed up?
most government regulatory agencies are merely "millionaire incubators" - the chief and high level staff don't want to piss off their future employers.
If they are deferential/incompetent/corrupt enough, they will leave gov't for a job with the industry they were regulating for a significant salary increase.
some of them even make round trips: industry to gov't back to industry
What's the alternative? How do we prevent the flow of qualified people back and forth between public and private service? Honest question, because I'm curious how people think we can "fix" this "problem".
Mullica Hill, NJ
Easy, if one has worked in a control position of the sector to be regulated they cannot enter a control position of the government agency that regulated them. And have it in their contract that they cannot go back the same way.
Allowing a cable exec to get into the FCC or FTC is a bit like letting the fox guard the hens.
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Forever? Or for a period of time? If the FCC is being staffed by technical types (arguably it isn't, but it should be), won't they be hard-pressed to find employment after their tenure, considering their expertise and focus?
Not discounting your proposition, just thinking through the whole thing.
|reply to Kearnstd |
said by Kearnstd:But don't we want people who are experienced in the industries they are regulating?
Easy, if one has worked in a control position of the sector to be regulated they cannot enter a control position of the government agency that regulated them.
Is it better to have bureaucrats who know nothing of business or technology making decisions?
|reply to openbox9 |
As far as I know, this is a much bigger problem in the US than in most countries, in particular, France. In France, the regulators are highly educated at the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, receive good salaries, and have low turnover - because the top tiers of the bureaucracy are filled by merit (Civil Service) not by political appointees. In the US we have, I believe, over 10,000 political appointee jobs that turn over every time a new President takes office. In France that number is about a hundred. The ability to accumulate and pass on knowledge is constantly degraded in our system. By design, I would say.