FCC, Carriers Close To Largely Empty Neutrality Agreement All that's left is a little fauxsumer showmanship... Industry analyst Dave Burstein drops us a line to note that all the top lobbyists for the industry's heavyweights (AT&T, Verizon, the NCTA) met with the FCC over the weekend and are very close to getting a deal done on network neutrality. With the phone companies now essentially part of our country's intelligence system, Burstein suggests that top Verizon and AT&T execs and lobbyists were able to put pressure on Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel to get a deal done. The deal, according to Burstein is little more than "symbolic and essentially a fig leaf." Under pressure like that, Julius has already agreed to almost everything Cicconi (AT&T's top lobbyist) really wants, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. K & A say there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant. This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance. The approaching deal ( confirmed by a Stifel Nicolaus analyst report) comes after months of closed door meetings with carriers, which completely ran contrary to the FCC's promise of well-documented transparency. An empty network neutrality agreement would mimic our largely toothless national broadband plan, paying lip service to consumer-friendly concepts, but delivering no real substantive policy or rules. With the neutrality deal essentially done, all that's left is for the FCC and carriers to put on a good fauxsumer show over the next few weeks. Neutrality rules might not be necessary in the first place if the FCC was willing to stand up to carriers and tackle the sector's primary problem: a lack of substantive competition in most markets. Real competition would allow consumers to vote with their wallets, organically punishing carriers who engage in poor behavior of any time (be it unreasonable capping plans, unreasonable throttling, or preferential treatment of their own content). Instead, FCC boss Genachowski appears completely incapable of making tough decisions or taking solid positions on any subject (right around this time last year we noted how this might be a problem). The result (aside from some genuinely good new data-collection efforts) is empty policy with endless loopholes, something that certainly helps carriers more than consumers. In the end, Genachowski's efforts to please everybody may wind up pleasing nobody, though AT&T may be happy in believing they've put to bed a debate they themselves started back in 2005. Update: We've got more detail here, for those interested.
|
  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | What agreement? Why is this a negotiation? | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What agreement? said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? because the govt is owned by corporations. if FCC pisses off ILECs bad enough, they will run to their paid stooges in congress, who will in turn ream Julius's @ss and he will not get his cushy, 6 or 7 figure job after he leaves the FCC.
that's how we roll in the U S of A these days. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: What agreement? said by nasadude  because the govt is owned by corporations
:
 | |
| | | | | I couldn't have said it better 'nasadude.' Seems to be *par* for the course. | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? Because the FCC is easily bullied. | |
| | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: What agreement? said by funchords:said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? Because the FCC is easily bullied. Not really, I think they are scared of the courts. The create some regulations,big bad corp. goes to court and ends up winning and then FC is in worse shape than before. Problem is they need congress to give them more authority and well can you see anything passing congress that give the FCC more authority? To top it off FCC lacks the backsbone to even try and leverage the full power of title 2 and instead twists intself into a pretzel trying to please everyone.
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
| | | |  TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What agreement? said by caco:said by funchords:said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? Because the FCC is easily bullied. Not really, I think they are scared of the courts. The create some regulations,big bad corp. goes to court and ends up winning and then FC is in worse shape than before. Problem is they need congress to give them more authority and well can you see anything passing congress that give the FCC more authority? To top it off FCC lacks the backsbone to even try and leverage the full power of title 2 and instead twists intself into a pretzel trying to please everyone. You mean the Big Bad Corp that, builds, maintains, and owns the infrastructure that we pay for them to use?
The same Big Bad Corp that employs 1000s of people who love to eat as well?
That Big Bad Corp? | |
| | | | | | | Re: What agreement? Yep you guessed it. The same ones who continue to squeeze the pay and productivity of every employee while nickel and diming their customer base all on top of making boatloads of PROFIT! Wake the F up! | |
| | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What agreement? said by FLATLINE:Yep you guessed it. The same ones who continue to squeeze the pay and productivity of every employee while nickel and diming their customer base all on top of making boatloads of PROFIT! Wake the F up! ROFL...I bet your one of those Apple using, sedgeway drivin, latte drinkin, cashmere wearin individuals eh?
How much is a boatload anyway? You know Apple made over 13 billion last year right? Maybe they should give it all back right? Maybe they should give it to ME! Yeah!
BTW - do you or any of your family work at a COMPANY? How do you sleep at night? You gotta take extra long showers to help wipe the corporate stench off of you? | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: What agreement? said by TechieZero:How much is a boatload anyway? You know Apple made over 13 billion last year right? Maybe they should give it all back right? Maybe they should give it to ME! Yeah! Over 23 years (1977 to 2000), CEO pay rose from 33 times what the average worker earns to a whopping 300 times.
At the beginning of that trend, Ronald Reagan asked the question, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"
I don't think there's anything wrong with asking how we're "better off" after three decades of deregulatory politics. For every dollar of national income, the top 1% of income earners have vastly increased their share. The bottom 50% actually earn less than they did 30 years ago.
I don't think the seriousness of these matters can be dismissed with sarcasm. Today, we have more in common with Mexico and Brazil, where a tiny few elite control real political power. | |
| | | | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What agreement? Eh? Deregulation? The telephony industry has to be one of the highest regulated industries next to health care and building nukes for fun and profit.
It lives in such a deregulated environment that eventually some jackass thinks you have a "monopoly", then carves up your evil company in to tiny pieces to set the industry back 20 years. I bet they even said "we are doing it for the children!"
The land of the free, the brave, and state controlled industry is already here. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? said by TechieZero:Eh? Deregulation? The telephony industry ... If you think the last 30 years were an era of greater regulation, you have no concept of reality.
It's widely accepted that regressive taxation, breaking up the bells, barring regulation of derivatives by state regulators, etc., were all part of a society-wide era of pro-deregulation.
It cross both political parties. Even Clinton played along, retaining Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Or, opposing regulation of derivatives and standing by as Brooksley Borne was railroaded as she sought to regulate them in 1997, predicting they would bring down the economy (just months before the LTCM crisis which was largely a derivative crisis). | |
| | | | | | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What agreement? ???
I am posting in DSLREPORTS right? A site dedicated to everything broadband, networking, and telephony right? Did I land in some left leaning version of Forbes by accident? Where did financial concerns come in to this realm?
Derivatives products are like anything else. If you don't understand them, don't throw money in to them. People weren't complaining when it was all fat and happy before the "bubble" went pop.
Bah! What am I saying? Capitalism is evil! We should do something else that was tried and more sucessfull! Wait! What? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? said by TechieZero:??? I am posting in DSLREPORTS right? A site dedicated to everything broadband, networking, and telephony right? Did I land in some left leaning version of Forbes by accident? Where did financial concerns come in to this realm? Derivatives products are like anything else. If you don't understand them, don't throw money in to them. People weren't complaining when it was all fat and happy before the "bubble" went pop. Bah! What am I saying? Capitalism is evil! We should do something else that was tried and more sucessfull! Wait! What? You're missing the parallels between the way government handles the telecom industry and the way it handles rest of our economy. I see that in the face of real facts you simply throw out ad hominems, refusing to accept what's right in front of you.
Internet lines, specifically the last mile, are an infrastructure issue. Were the government to build out all the lines and maintain them itself, the same way it does our roads, sewers, electricity, etc. it would also employ the same number of people, and money would not be funneled towards shareholders and executive compensation in the form of tens of billions in profits each year. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | said by TechieZero:Derivatives products are like anything else. Derivatives are not "like anything else." For example, Credit Default Swaps are a form of insurance. But, anyone could issue them. There were no capital requirements like we require of insurance companies. No visibility into the exposure an underwriter had to any specific insurable event, or counterparty.
That's what led to society loosing billions on AIG. They wrote insurance contracts like crazy. No requirements that they would actually have to have enough capital to pay claims.
Actually, what led to loosing billions was who AIG owed money to.
There were plenty of less credible underwriters who defaulted on their counterparties (without paying off the "bet," or settling for pennies on the dollar). AIG's counterparties were the big banks. AIG had to be rescued so Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et. al. could get their "bets" paid off.
said by TechieZero: If you don't understand them, don't throw money in to them. That was the problem. You can't understand derivatives when they aren't traded through an exchange, where the counterparty relationsships and over-exposure can be determined and risks understood.
That's what Brooksley Born warned of in 1997. She was squashed like a bug. Later, in 2001, Congress passed legislation prohibiting states from regulating Credit Default Swaps as insurance.
said by TechieZero:People weren't complaining when it was all fat and happy before the "bubble" went pop. I agree. Nobody wants to take the punch bowl away just when the party's getting fun.
That's always the case with regulation.
Nobody wanted to regulate the stock market as the "bucket shops" were having great fun in the early 1900s. (Side bets on securities which the betters didn't actually have to own. I.e., pure speculation.). When the hangover hit in 1907, bucket shops were outlawed.
Simiarly, nobody wanted to regulate the stock market as the bucket-shop law was circumvented in the 1920s, with people owning securities, but at a 90% level of leverage. (I.e., they owned only 1 out of 10 securities they were betting on.). When the hangover hit in 1929, everyone loved the idea of regulation.
The funny thing is, the derivatives failures of 1998 (LTCM crisis) and 2008 were very similar to 1907 and 1929.
Credit Default Swaps were essentially "side bets" like bucket shops a century earlier. I could take either side of the bet that someone would (or wouldn't) default on their mortgage without having to own the mortgage, nor be the borrower, nor an investor in a Collateralized Debt Obligation upon within which the mortgage was securitized.
Literally, I could be your neighbor and either be the underwriter or counterparty to whether you default on your mortgage.
The same with whether a bank would become insolvent, or a nation would default on its sovereign debt. I could take either side of a bet with anyone willing to take the other side of that bet.
With stocks, that's called naked shorting. It's prohibited. But, because this didn't involve stocks, and didn't occur on an exchange, it was just a "side bet."
Simiarly, because there was no capital reserve requirement (like we impose upon insurance companies). The underwriters of these bets were leveraged like investors in 1929.
said by TechieZero:Bah! What am I saying? Capitalism is evil! We should do something else that was tried and more sucessfull! Wait! What? Hopefully you'll get to the point that you can engage the topics you raise with thought instead of the escapism of sarcasm.
I'd say that both capitalism and socialism are "evil." That's why we have neither in an absolute form. We have "socialized capitalism." In, what Adam Smith called a political economy. I.e., that "markets" don't exist outside the societies that make them up.
That's why we don't have raw, pure, free markets. Instead, we create corporate entities via public law (state legislatures) to shield officers and investors from their personal responsibility because it facilitates commerce in ways a truly "free market" wouldn't.
Or, the same way we impose building codes and zoning laws upon what would otherwise be perfect "willing buyers and sellers" exercising pure "capitalism."
The list of examples is endless.
Doesn't mean pure socialism is good. Just that we can conclude pure capitalism isn't good either (without anyone's head exploding). | |
| | | | | | | | | | TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: What agreement? said by amigo_boy:Hopefully you'll get to the point that you can engage the topics you raise with thought instead of the escapism of sarcasm. I'd say that both capitalism and socialism are "evil." That's why we have neither in an absolute form. We have "socialized capitalism." In, what Adam Smith called a political economy. I.e., that "markets" don't exist outside the societies that make them up. That's why we don't have raw, pure, free markets. Instead, we create corporate entities via public law (state legislatures) to shield officers and investors from their personal responsibility because it facilitates commerce in ways a truly "free market" wouldn't. Or, the same way we impose building codes and zoning laws upon what would otherwise be perfect "willing buyers and sellers" exercising pure "capitalism." The list of examples is endless. Doesn't mean pure socialism is good. Just that we can conclude pure capitalism isn't good either (without anyone's head exploding). Why would I abandon sarcasm for? I am LMAO and I am doing this to escape work; not work at being serious. This isn't the proper forum to discuss this topic anyway...go hold a town hall with someone who actually gives a damn --- we are just having casual conversation that no one will care in the next second.
But I think in the end you have realized that we have enough goverment overhead and control in the process already. 
edit - I also wanted to add that no government rules or regs will fix human greed and stupidity and in the end we will just substitute it all with government slavery. No thanks. | |
|
| | | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by amigo_boy:The bottom 50% actually earn less than they did 30 years ago. I don't think the seriousness of these matters can be dismissed with sarcasm. Today, we have more in common with Mexico and Brazil, where a tiny few elite control real political power. There is an explanation for that. It is called global competition and the entry in to international trade of tremendous numbers of extremely low paid Asian workers. Up until about 30 yrs ago, these workers were either subsistence farmers or made goods strictly for home consumption. When they started making goods for foreign consumption and when tariff barriers dropped and free trade agreements were signed, the protected low skilled middle class workers in the US all of a sudden had low wage competitors. Hence their wages dropped.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? said by Linklist:said by amigo_boy:The bottom 50% actually earn less than they did 30 years ago. I don't think the seriousness of these matters can be dismissed with sarcasm. Today, we have more in common with Mexico and Brazil, where a tiny few elite control real political power. There is an explanation for that. It is called global competition and the entry in to international trade of tremendous numbers of extremely low paid Asian workers. Up until about 30 yrs ago, these workers were either subsistence farmers or made goods strictly for home consumption. When they started making goods for foreign consumption and when tariff barriers dropped and free trade agreements were signed, the protected low skilled middle class workers in the US all of a sudden had low wage competitors. Hence their wages dropped. That's an insufficient and mostly misleading claim. The real reason for the wage drop of the middle and lower classes has been the deregulation of Wall Street and the degradation of progressive taxation. The increasing share of societal wealth held by the top tiers of affluence are evidence of this problem. Capitalist societies are inherently inequal in part to create incentive for people to advance themselves to higher tiers of status and fortune. But when the odds are stacked against them to such a degree that they can no longer afford the same opportunities as their richer peers, society begins to break down. That's what amigo is alluding to with Mexico. | |
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | said by Linklist:When they started making goods for foreign consumption and when tariff barriers dropped and free trade agreements were signed, the protected low skilled middle class workers in the US all of a sudden had low wage competitors. Hence their wages dropped. I agree that's what happened. Some Americans have had to face "free markets" (international trade created through social moderation of the market via trade agreements which are to the benefit of business) which others have not.
I.e, when an American industry is jeopardized by product dumping and foreign tariffs, we (society) take defensive action. When the average person who is forced by law to pay for our standard of living is affected by labor dumping (workers who use their gutters as sewers, eat the free-roaming cats and dogs, and pimp their 14-year-old daughters to supplement the family income) we're told "it's just a free market. Stop expecting a handout."
That kind of unequal benefit from society is what gives us more in common with Mexico and Brazil. But, it's more our response to that unequal benefit. Not just that it exists.
For example, during the period of the manifestation you note, American CEO pay rose from 33 times the average worker's pay, to 300 times. But, in Europe, it rose to only 100 times.
In other words, they have more interest in *more* equal benefit from the system. They face the same problem you describe. But, unlike us, they don't share as much in common with Mexico and Brazil, where a handful of individuals wield real power.
So, I agree with you about what the forces are behind the change over the past 30 years. But, the problem is in how we (unlike other nations) have responded to the forces.
Our response is more like Mexico and Brazil. Use government to improve the conditions for financial and commercial markets. Then tell workers, "hey, it's a 'free market'". In the end, the elite become more elite. The disenfranchised become more disenfranchised. | |
|
| | | | | |
1 edit | Man your not very good at profiling. Im a construction worker. i drink my coffee with a little cream and sugar (Tim Hortons!!!). I mostly wear T Shirts and jeans with a baseball cap. I use an Android Smartphone and wouldnt get within 20 ft of a fricken Segway. I have two forms of transport a Chrysler Cirrus as my daily driver and an 87 Mustang GT slightly modified for the weekends and cruise nights. Dont get me wrong I can clean up with the best of them. I also run a rather successfull medical cleaning business. Put all that in your pipe and smoke it.
Did you even read my post? Im not for the big Corp and if you bothered to even research any of my earlier posts in other threads you would see that I understand the need for business to make money but am sickened by these same businesses who take advantage of the consumer. So navigate back up to the top, read slowly and put this all in the right contect so you dont continue to make a fool out of yourself. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by FLATLINE:The same ones who continue to squeeze the pay and productivity of every employee while nickel and diming their customer base all on top of making boatloads of PROFIT! What's wrong with profit? Do you have a 401(k)? Does it have stocks in it? Do you own any mutual funds? If so, then you are profiting from Verizon and AT&T.......
I take issue with a lot of stuff that corporate America does (in particular, the incessant focus on the next quarter at the expense of the long term) but I don't see anything wrong with the desire to make money. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? Really? Do you only see two sides on the extreme? Did I ever say im against companies making a profit? What Ive always talked about is here is business 101. Treating employees and consumers with respect. I dont see much of that going on do you? All I see is companies cutting everything possible from their employees while squeezing everything possible and sometimes more from their customers. Big Copr pushing their way through this country as if they own it. They dont! The people own it. Whats stupid is Big Corp is run by people two and they are too greedy and stupid to realize that they are jeapordizing their own futures and their childrens with these sloppy and irresponsible business practices. Whatever.
To answer your questions. Nothing is wrong with profit when done ethically. Providing a good or service that has a value or even a perceived value to the customer all while doing it ethically. I dont have a 401 K. I own and invest in land properties. Its a way I can grow my money while having an acceptable level of control. Something I couldnt get with investing in stock.
But enough about me. This isnt about me. Its about all of us consumers not being properly represented. Our voices arent being heard and its mostly because theres not enough of us speaking out, taking action. Life is about balance my friends and balance has tipped too far to one end and its not ours. | |
|
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yeah, on my property and easements they get for free.
I will cry no tears for them. They get handed exclusive rights to "Serve" me and that's exactly what they do. They shovel it and my choice is to lick it up or take nothing at all. I mean sure I could do without electricity, water, gas, communications and transport....
Whoops. No I can't. Damn.
Yeah. Free market. Woo hoo. Anything but.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | The same ones that bribe Congress and State legislators to enforce the oligopoly and outlaw competition. Yep, those same ones. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? Because Federal agencies can only regulate effectively with the cooperation of the regulated. The regulated companies might not agree with all the decisions, but if they feel they can't be heard(and listened to), then they will fight the regulator tooth & nail in the courts and in the Congress and in the press.
The Constitution created 3 so-called equal branches of government(legislative, executive, & judiciary), but there are actually 2 more de-facto members with equal powers:
The Press &
The Business Community
I am sure Genachowski, not being some naive neophyte to politics, understands that reality.
What you suggest(no negotiation) is only done in fascist regimes that don't care one whit about the opinions and input of the governed.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: What agreement? said by Linklist:What you suggest(no negotiation) is only done in fascist regimes that don't care one whit about the opinions and input of the governed. You miss the point. At the top of your 5 branches really ought to be the people and their interests.
There's plenty of money to be made serving the telecommunications needs of people with adequate facilities, fairness, and assurance of privacy. The FCC doesn't need to be meek about that!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: What agreement? said by funchords:You miss the point. At the top of your 5 branches really ought to be the people and their interests. No I didn't miss the point, but I think you did. In a representative democracy, the "mass of people" are not truly represented and NEVER were. The only people listened to & represented are committed and motivated GROUPS with the will to make their issues known and who are willing to weigh in at election time with money and participation.
In the US, the mass of voters are apathetic, uninterested drones whose main concern is what reality show is on TV and if they can get their burger at a good price. They don't participate in the political process and therefore the elected politicians don't care what they think(if indeed they actually think anything worthwhile).
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | | | | |  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Re: What agreement? said by Linklist:said by funchords:You miss the point. At the top of your 5 branches really ought to be the people and their interests. No I didn't miss the point, but I think you did. In a representative democracy, the "mass of people" are not truly represented and NEVER were. The only people listened to & represented are committed and motivated GROUPS with the will to make their issues known and who are willing to weigh in at election time with money and participation. In the US, the mass of voters are apathetic, uninterested drones whose main concern is what reality show is on TV and if they can get their burger at a good price. They don't participate in the political process and therefore the elected politicians don't care what they think(if indeed they actually think anything worthwhile). We're actually a constitutional republic. | |
| | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: What agreement? Congress seems to have forgotten about the whole "Constitution" thing. | |
| | | | | | | Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Re: What agreement? said by Z80A:Congress seems to have forgotten about the whole "Constitution" thing. Lol, true. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Steve B:We're actually a constitutional republic. That always seems like a distinction without point.
The implication of those who make the distinction is that we're a nation of laws, not pure democracy. But, laws are a result of democracy. A republic (through its constitution, which is a set of laws) makes it more difficult for the "mob" to change the law. But, that's simply the application of the will of an earlier "mob."
The more meaningful distinction of a republic comes from the political theory of Civic Republicanism (Aristotle, Cicero, Harrington, Machiavelli, Rousseau). It describes the quality of the citizen, the state, and how the two are dependent upon each other to maintain that quality through the forced (coercion) participation of citizens by the state -- and the citizens' self-sufficiency to resist unvirtuous government by returning to their lands, not needing to be dependent upon government.
Therefore, the quality of laws (and the validity of the "mob's" assent to them) was dependent upon the "virtue" of both the citizen and the state. And, perhaps more importantly, the virtue of the "mob" generations past who enacted laws binding a future generation.
Speaking less abstractly, that system which depended upon virtuous citizens was based largely upon "never ending frontiers" to supply the land to agrarian citizens who could be self sufficient. Clearly that wasn't sustainable.
Also, Civic Republicanism dependended upon self-sufficient citizens who were unspecialized and could participate in government (jury, militia and hold office). Since we've become a specialized, non-agrarian society, the vast majority of citizens spend their lives working for others in a specialized trade.
Advocates of Civic Republicanism would call such citizens "palsied." Not capable of the virtue that a republic is dependent upon.
Considering that reality, we're nothing more than a representative democracy with throwbacks to republicanism.
That may seem like a minor difference. To most it is, because they see a "republic" as nothing more than a democracy bounded by a constitution. But, that definition implies that the law is more important than the will of the majority. Which, if you dig deeper, gets into *why*. The reason the law was more important than simple majoritarianism stemmed from the origin of a republic (the political institutions and emphasis upon the citizens who were expected to animate them).
Since we've lost that origin, "republic" has been largely redefined by those who use the term today as if there's a significant difference between republic and democracy. Historically, there was a difference. Today, there's not.
Today, a "republic" is equivalent to "representative and constitutional democracy."
A system where we delegate our will to others to exercise for us. But, those representatives pander to majoritarianism in ways that true republicanism would say is contrary to a republic.
And, a system that is bound by the laws (constitution) of a previous pandered-to majority.
So, the point is, when people use the word "republic" like it signifies something, they are ignoring that in theory it means something. But, in reality it hasn't meant anything for well over 100 years. And, it couldn't because the theory didn't anticipate a modern, non-agrarian, specialized society. | |
| | | | | | | Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Re: What agreement? said by amigo_boy:said by Steve B:We're actually a constitutional republic. That always seems like a distinction without point. The implication of those who make the distinction is that we're a nation of laws, not pure democracy. But, laws are a result of democracy. A republic (through its constitution, which is a set of laws) makes it more difficult for the "mob" to change the law. But, that's simply the application of the will of an earlier "mob." The more meaningful distinction of a republic comes from the political theory of Civic Republicanism (Aristotle, Cicero, Harrington, Machiavelli, Rousseau). It describes the quality of the citizen, the state, and how the two are dependent upon each other to maintain that quality through the forced (coercion) participation of citizens by the state -- and the citizens' self-sufficiency to resist unvirtuous government by returning to their lands, not needing to be dependent upon government. Therefore, the quality of laws (and the validity of the "mob's" assent to them) was dependent upon the "virtue" of both the citizen and the state. And, perhaps more importantly, the virtue of the "mob" generations past who enacted laws binding a future generation. Speaking less abstractly, that system which depended upon virtuous citizens was based largely upon "never ending frontiers" to supply the land to agrarian citizens who could be self sufficient. Clearly that wasn't sustainable. Also, Civic Republicanism dependended upon self-sufficient citizens who were unspecialized and could participate in government (jury, militia and hold office). Since we've become a specialized, non-agrarian society, the vast majority of citizens spend their lives working for others in a specialized trade. Advocates of Civic Republicanism would call such citizens "palsied." Not capable of the virtue that a republic is dependent upon. Considering that reality, we're nothing more than a representative democracy with throwbacks to republicanism. That may seem like a minor difference. To most it is, because they see a "republic" as nothing more than a democracy bounded by a constitution. But, that definition implies that the law is more important than the will of the majority. Which, if you dig deeper, gets into *why*. The reason the law was more important than simple majoritarianism stemmed from the origin of a republic (the political institutions and emphasis upon the citizens who were expected to animate them). Since we've lost that origin, "republic" has been largely redefined by those who use the term today as if there's a significant difference between republic and democracy. Historically, there was a difference. Today, there's not. Today, a "republic" is equivalent to "representative and constitutional democracy." A system where we delegate our will to others to exercise for us. But, those representatives pander to majoritarianism in ways that true republicanism would say is contrary to a republic. And, a system that is bound by the laws (constitution) of a previous pandered-to majority. So, the point is, when people use the word "republic" like it signifies something, they are ignoring that in theory it means something. But, in reality it hasn't meant anything for well over 100 years. And, it couldn't because the theory didn't anticipate a modern, non-agrarian, specialized society. Good point  | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | I have a hard time disagreeing with anything you said, so I'll just agree and thumbs up.  | |
|
| | | | | | said by Linklist:In the US, the mass of voters are apathetic, uninterested drones whose main concern is what reality show is on TV and if they can get their burger at a good price. They don't participate in the political process and therefore the elected politicians don't care what they think(if indeed they actually think anything worthwhile). I would add that they are represented by a sixth branch: the newly-awakened and easily-demogogued "activist." Whether pitch-forking angry "patriots." Or, the starry-eyed who sing the Coca-Cola song when they hear the word "change."
That sixth branch is related to the seventh branch: polarized regulars of the "two-party" party who will manipulate any group because the ends justify the means when the world boils down to nothing more than "us versus them."
We really need preferential balloting and a parliamentary system which makes "specialization" as much a reality in politics as the industrial revolution did for everyone else in their private lives.
Congressional representation only feeds pandering (corporations, the reactionary newly-awakened, party regulars and the apathetic). The two-party lock on elections (through fear voting due to a lack of runoff) is like an accelerant to a fire that already exists. | |
| | | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: What agreement? But any other system is worse. The system was set by and for the Rich. You could not even vote if you did not own land or were rich enough. Most people in the US could not name their two Senators and Representative. I can name them but not the State Reps in the same positions. I am a news hound so I don't have much of an excuse but it scares me how people decide to vote.
Everybody complains about low turnout but do you really want somebody to vote because they saw a sign with a name on it. Look at what happened in SC in the Democratic Primary a totally unknown won the nomination. He did not campaign AT ALL. The only thing anyone can figure out is his name was first on the ballot. He has given 1 speech since the election I hear it and other then saying he wants to make things better there was no substance. I do not live in SC so I can't vote for or against. I think most voters are voting against a candidate then voting for the person they vote for. Just my 2 cents. We get what get because most of us don't care and can't really find out what they stand for because most of them will not really answer a question. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? said by WhatNow:Everybody complains about low turnout but do you really want somebody to vote because they saw a sign with a name on it. I agree with your points. But, I disagree that any other system is worse. Check into the difference between parliamentary representation versus congressional.
A parliamentary system is great for a modern society where specialization (apathy and delegation, non-participation) are a reality. It places more power (and accountability) with the party rather than the individual candidates.
A congressional system is great for an engaged, participatory populace (as envisioned by Civic Republicanism). The industrial revolution put an end to that vision of predominantly agrarian and unspecialized citizens.
The result today is a system designed for an engaged populace, producing candidates who pander to a fraction of the population who don't represent the majority. A fraction who are 100% die-hard party loyalists -- while the party has no control over individual members -- and thus can claim no responsibility for its resulting control over government.
A parliamentary system may sound like an opportunity for corruption, giving greater control to the "party" and discouraging "voting for the person, instead of the party." But, what's more corrupt? People voting based upon pandering within a system that was designed for participation by the entire citizenry (virtuous citizens, not the apathetic)?
To me, the key benefit is adopting "specialization" in politics as a reality. We already have it. The problem is that the system of representation wasn't designed for specialization. We have the charade of citizen politicians going to Washington. In reality it is millionaires who go there for the power, not public service. And, the career staffers who wield real power, and remain regardless of how often you might "vote out the incumbents."
Our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all ballot system contributes to the problem. A preferential ballot strip the two incumbent parties of their power, allowing alternative parties to compete. | |
|
| | | | | | said by Linklist:said by funchords:You miss the point. At the top of your 5 branches really ought to be the people and their interests. No I didn't miss the point, but I think you did. In a representative democracy, the "mass of people" are not truly represented and NEVER were. The only people listened to & represented are committed and motivated GROUPS with the will to make their issues known and who are willing to weigh in at election time with money and participation. Corporations derive their money from customers who pay them for a service. If I pay Time Warner for cable service, I'm not complicit in their desire to lobby/bribe Congress to gut net neutrality. It's entirely illogical to assume corporations should have the right to use their profits to influence government in a way that disagrees with the populace. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What agreement? said by sonicmerlin:Corporations derive their money from customers who pay them for a service. If I pay Time Warner for cable service, I'm not complicit in their desire to lobby/bribe Congress to gut net neutrality. It's entirely illogical to assume corporations should have the right to use their profits to influence government in a way that disagrees with the populace. MMH's comment didn't explicitly mention corporations. But, I'd like to hear his views on the point you raised.
If customers buy a service from a corporation, and millions of people capitalize the corporation by owning shares through 401k "index funds" (a fund of 500-2000 corporations), does that equate to implicit approval of the corporation's legislative interests? Should the corporation be allowed to use the income/capital derived from such sources in ways that are contrary to the interests of the individuals whence the money came from?
Personally, I could see individuals with significant stake in a corporation (employees, the town where a corporation resides, trading partners) forming an political action committee to explicitly pool their resources (and political voice) for *their* shared interests in the corporation. Whatever common ground they can agree on.
To me, the idea that a corporation's interests are the same as everyone who bought something from them, or bought into the S&P 500 index fund (with little regard for which 500 companies are in it, or what their peculiar interests are) is problematic.
Curious what MMH thinks. | |
| | | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: What agreement? said by amigo_boy:said by sonicmerlin:Corporations derive their money from customers who pay them for a service. If I pay Time Warner for cable service, I'm not complicit in their desire to lobby/bribe Congress to gut net neutrality. It's entirely illogical to assume corporations should have the right to use their profits to influence government in a way that disagrees with the populace. MMH's comment didn't explicitly mention corporations. But, I'd like to hear his views on the point you raised. To answer one point:
quote:
illogical to assume corporations should have the right to use their profits to influence government in a way that disagrees with the populace.
And what exactly is the opinion of "the populace" and who is it that decides what that is. I submit that the Board of Directors, put in place by the shareholders, gets to determine what that opinion is. And if they are wrong often enough they get replaced by the shareholders. A corporation does represent large portions of the populace and they are answerable to them for their actions. And in actuality, corporations are MORE responsive to their constituents than are politicians, who pretty much ignore their constituents wishes. I'll trust a corporate board to do the right thing much more often than I would a politician.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: What agreement? said by Linklist:And what exactly is the opinion of "the populace" and who is it that decides what that is. I'd say "the populace" is:
Each individual who makes up "the populace," and is fully vested in the right to petition government, and to associate with other individuals for the purpose of petitioning government regarding their shared interests.
said by Linklist:I submit that the Board of Directors, put in place by the shareholders, gets to determine what that opinion is. That's where my concern begins. How does millions of individuals buying indexed mutual funds through their 401ks just to get "above market returns" translate into tacit association and agreement of shared goals?
Isn't that like me owing you money, and writing on the back of one of my monthly checks "cashing this check is acceptance of payment in full?"
It's been long held that it takes more deliberation and consummation for you to to "agree" to something like that. So, how does merely buying shares in an index fund (which results in fractional shares in a specific company within that index) constitute agreement that a corporation shares or represents my opinion?
What would be wrong with requiring those who truly have a shared opinion (goal, interests) with a corporation to affirmatively express their consent by joining a political-action-committee separate from the corporation, specifically to petition government concerning their interest in that corporation?
said by Linklist:And if they are wrong often enough they get replaced by the shareholders. How does that work when the shareholders bought shares in 2000 businesses (via the Russell 2000 small-cap index)? They didn't intend to get into a relationship with a corporation which would require them to vote. In fact, they don't even get to vote. The fund manager does(!).
said by Linklist: A corporation does represent large portions of the populace and they are answerable to them for their actions. And in actuality, corporations are MORE responsive to their constituents than are politicians, who pretty much ignore their constituents wishes. I'll trust a corporate board to do the right thing much more often than I would a politician. I think the concern people have is that politicians would be more responsive if corporations didn't claim to represent individuals in the way you suggest they do (and should).
Basically, you've defined a new form of representative government -- without the representation. One where a significant portion of a corporation's shares come from mutual funds, and the shareholders can't vote. Nor did they buy the fund with the intention of being represented, or ceding that kind of consent to the fund manager.). | |
|
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Sadly, you make a lot of sense. | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Murder seems to be regulated without the need for negotiation. | |
| | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by Linklist:Because Federal agencies can only regulate effectively with the cooperation of the regulated. In other words, they can only do WHAT THE COMPANIES SAY. Like regulations that BAR competition for example.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | | | said by Linklist:said by Z80A:Why is this a negotiation? Because Federal agencies can only regulate effectively with the cooperation of the regulated. The regulated companies might not agree with all the decisions, but if they feel they can't be heard(and listened to), then they will fight the regulator tooth & nail in the courts and in the Congress and in the press. The Constitution created 3 so-called equal branches of government(legislative, executive, & judiciary), but there are actually 2 more de-facto members with equal powers: The Press & The Business Community I am sure Genachowski, not being some naive neophyte to politics, understands that reality. What you suggest(no negotiation) is only done in fascist regimes that don't care one whit about the opinions and input of the governed. So we are to understand that the rest of the democratic world is controlled by fascist regimes? Only in the US do corporations so boldly step on the toes of regulatory agencies and the entire government itself, controlling members of Congress like puppeteers. EU regulators view US agencies with shock at how weak they are in the face of corporate onslaughts. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Because the Government no longer represents citizens or consumers---- The only citizens they represent are their donors and the ones who run and own large amounts of stock in these companies. The Government wants them to play ball with it's "intelligence" activities so quid pro quo.
Regulations? Hell no. Welcome to the United States of Corporate America, where the regulatory branch AND the enforcement branches are all lapdogs of the large Corporate state.
It's our own fault, they keep feeding us the "Liberals vs Conservatives" game and we happily play along like compliant little sheep..... and therefore we elect people who are just different flavors of the same lapdog.
I try not to grow cynical and disillusioned, but it's really getting hard to take these unending series of hits and blows from the private sector and their public "servants."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | so they can screw you and do it legally read title | |
| | | So Why do We put up with these corporate shenanigans? Indeed, this IS how things are done in these late, great, USof A, which begs the question of why do we the people put up with it? Government of, by, and for the People, or so I thought.
Unreasonable capped data plans? I definitely think $40/month for 250 Megs of data on my verizon data card is defininitely unreasonable.
Throttling? When was the last time Verizon did that? They prefer bilking additional revenue streams through overages.
No tethering/wifi-hotspot on the Droid with the new Android 2.2 update. 2 Gig data cap on phones that DO have it. At an extra charge of $20/month no less.
FCC, where are my OPTIONS? Where is the consumer advocacy and competition you promised in your Net Nutrality negotiations? Obviously not there now. "This one is all about money and power." Right. It sure the H**L is. | |
| | | | Re: So Why do We put up with these corporate shenanigans? said by podstolom: "This one is all about money and power." Right. It sure the H**L is. It always has been. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The only way to change it would be some kind of mass uprising or revolt.
However, in today's society attempting to organize such a thing would get you put away as a "Terrorist."
The Politicians are not going to change the system. They're players in it. We elect people who are beholden to their party and interests, and even new people in Congress quickly are subjugated and assimilated into the game--- or they are forced out.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | its called choice, we do it to our selves. if you dont like your carrier leave. tmobile unlimited talk text and web 80. and built in tethering in android for free. imaging if people started leaving for tmo or sprint or whatever, verizon and att would crap there pants, and make some big changes fast. | |
| | | | | Re: So Why do We put up with these corporate shenanigans? said by nyc dude :
its called choice, we do it to our selves. if you dont like your carrier leave. tmobile unlimited talk text and web 80. and built in tethering in android for free. imaging if people started leaving for tmo or sprint or whatever, verizon and att would crap there pants, and make some big changes fast.
That's not much of a choice. Not like choosing a brand of bread, or laundry detergent.
Carriers use the public's finite resources (radio spectrum, and easements and rights of way). That creates a very limited competition. It's not like anyone can jump in and offer their own service.
It's competitive like a public utility is competitive. I can choose between natural gas or electric. But, we generally don't consider that to be much of a competitive choice. Thus both are regulated by the corporation commission.
| |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: So Why do We put up with these corporate shenanigans? said by amigo_boy:Thus both are regulated by the corporation commission. Even that though is being undermined... significantly.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
1 edit | Regulatory Capture The proper term is Regulatory Capture.
And it's not just the FCC; It's happening on a much grander scale at the SEC, CFTC, and congress - all of whom have been "captured" by Wall Street and the big banks. Financial regulatory reform is a joke with just as many loopholes for the banks as Net Neutrality has for carriers.
Goldman Sachs recently got off almost scot free with a $550 million slap on the wrist. All that matters is the greedy Wall Street psychopaths get richer at the expense of Main Street while congress scrambles to line their pockets at our expense. Eventually it all collapses and we wake up one day and bow to our masters in Asia.
Look around you at all the corruption, the greed, political stupidity, dumbed-down populace (thank you, media and public education system), the rotting infrastructure, and the brain-dead garbage that passes for modern entertainment.
Just as Rome fell ...
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Regulatory Capture Empires crumble from within. History has proven that time and time and time again. Eventually some external force finishes them off, but it's after the collapse from within has weakened it to the point it can no longer support itself.
The center does not hold.
Old empires lasted thousands of years. However modern life, everything is much, MUCH faster...... And the weapons we have now are so much more devastating. It's not going to be pretty.
It never is, but it appears things are coming that will eclipse the scope of past atrocities by many orders of magnitude.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | Empty NN What a joke! When did the Government start bowing down to big business? | |
| | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | Re: Empty NN said by Com7 :
What a joke! When did the Government start bowing down to big business?
According to moore, it started in the regan years.... | |
| | | | | Re: Empty NN said by decifal:said by Com7 :
What a joke! When did the Government start bowing down to big business?
According to moore, it started in the regan years.... Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown has an excellent history of this countries very predictable cycles of regulation/deregulation.
It has good examples of what happened between 1978 and 2008. Also, good information about the meltdown of 2008.
The book was actually released as "The Trillion Dollar Meltdown" in early 2008. He thought that was the collapse. He had to scramble to release a second edition after the real collapse hit late 2008. | |
|
| demirPremium
join:2010-07-15
usa
1 edit | Who did you think runs the gov't? The people?!?
It's the factions with the most money, obviously. | |
|
| | America just lost the Internet Welcome to the new Cable TV business, same as the old one just instead of CATV, its now broadcast over the Internet. Brilliant! Thank you FCC and Industry! We are industry and we tell you what you want to watch! Its time to say goodbye to Netflix and hello OCATV (Online CableTV).  | |
|
2 edits | Let's hope it really IS empty. Any "network neutrality" regulation that WAS implemented would be great for big corporations (most especially Google) but bad for consumers. Needless regulation of ISPs would increase the cost of Internet service (regulation is always costly, and disproportionately so for smaller and competitive providers), lower quality of service (the pirates would take over the network), deter broadband competition and deployment, and destroy jobs.
The best any of us (other than Google!) can hope for is that these covert negotiations (which the FCC staff has, apparently, attempted to bias toward Google by allowing it to have multiple representatives present - including its lobbyists from the so-called "Open Internet Coalition") to fall flat. After all, as with the Cheney/oil company negotiations, if there weren't monkey business going on, they wouldn't be covert. | |
|
| |
|
|
