This is an actual tragedy for the FCC and telecommunications policy. First, because she was an excellent choice and it looks like she would have run the FCC well.
Second because, as she angrily said, it nakedly shows the power of monopoly money* on congress, in particular the Senate.
At this point, it seems near impossible that anyone who isn’t a shill for corporations can be appointed to a position intended to be a check on said corporate interests.
I’m not sure how anyone who wants to see legitimate progress in technology would not support this candidate. Sure if you’re a m/billionaire it’s a bad pick but for the general populace, this was a solid pick. And it’s quite obvious that said corporate interests bought their way out of this candidate.
Being nakedly aggressive towards the people with whom you are supposed to work isn't going to help get anything done. If the hearing proved anything it was that she was hyper partisan.
7 comments
[ 209 ms ] story [ 58.7 ms ] threadSecond because, as she angrily said, it nakedly shows the power of monopoly money* on congress, in particular the Senate.
* not "Monopoly money"
I’m not sure how anyone who wants to see legitimate progress in technology would not support this candidate. Sure if you’re a m/billionaire it’s a bad pick but for the general populace, this was a solid pick. And it’s quite obvious that said corporate interests bought their way out of this candidate.
Corporations really don't like being regulated by outsiders when they know a lot about their business and are hard to bamboozle.