Wireless and Drone Execs Praised President Trump as He Pledged To Cut Down Regulations (recode.net) 94
U.S. President Donald Trump offered support for emerging technologies including unmanned aerial vehicles and next-generation wireless networks in a meeting on Thursday with the chiefs of AT&T and General Electric and other business leaders. From a report: For the likes of AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, the public audience with Trump offered an opportunity to continue nudging the U.S. government -- including in a scheduled, private session with the leader of the Federal Communications Commission earlier Thursday -- to cut back on restrictions that make it difficult for AT&T and other telecom giants to grow their footprint and deploy the new technologies, such as 5G wireless. Speaking with Recode later Thursday, Marcelo Claure, the chief executive of Sprint, said that he and others in his industry had emphasized to Trump that the government must help them deploy new tools like small cells -- essentially, mini cell towers that improve wireless connectivity. Trump, for his part, promised Thursday to cut down on "too many years of excessive government regulation" to enable innovators and investments to offer new cutting-edge tools in health care, science, medicine and communication. "We have had regulation that's been so bad, so out of line that it's really hurt our country," he said.
Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes down (Score:4, Interesting)
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's already illegal to smash a drone into a plane. I don't think deregulation will make it legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether the drone makers or the airplane makers are willing to pay trump more.
Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to come to grips with reality. Trump doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about me. He doesn't care about other people, other than (perhaps) his immediate family circle. He cares about money, power, and being worshiped. If he can make money by letting the drone makers occasionally take down a plane, he will.
Act like an adult and face the truth.
Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the execs do hard time when a drone takes down a plane
Will the executives at companies which manufacturer weather balloons do hard time if someone mis-uses one of those, and it gets sucked into an engine causing a crash? You sure hope so, right? And of course you're definitely in favor of the executives at Ford, GM, BMW and others going to jail when a terrorist uses a car to mow down some people on a sidewalk, a drunk driver kills somebody. Because no manufacturer should escape prison if people criminally or negligently mis-use their products. And people who write software should definitely do time if a criminal uses their software to do something illegal, for sure.
Re: (Score:1)
At the same time, let's not pretend cars and similar vehicles aren't heavily regulated, from federal regulations on fuel efficiency and safety features to state inspections. DOT has a huge influence, and the government most definitely has gone after execs and companies, such as recalls and other legal issues, ask GM and VW. Regulation even goes further into licensing, registration/tags, many major roads, insurance coverage, etc.
Weather balloons, similarly, are supposed to be regulated wrt air traffic, lik
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions, even over and beyond driver conduct. Call Ralph Nader and ask him for a list.
Which is the OPPOSITE of what we're talking about. Did Ralph Nader sue (and win) in a complaint against a car manufacturer because someone driving one of those cars committed a crime or didn't have (or choose to use) the skills required to operate the vehicle in a typical setting? No. Nothing even remotely like that. Why change the subject?
Funny, though, you didn't mention the most extensive harm from automobiles. Funny.
What are you talking about? The behavior of the drivers? That's exactly what we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you? Oh wait, it's because you don't want to admit that, yes, manufacturers have been sued and lost, for their own actions
That's a fine strawman collection you're building there. Does it feel good to fight them when nobody else is looking?
We're not talking about the manufacturer's actions. We're talking about the users of the products and THEIR actions. For example, somebody operating a drone. That person is responsible for their own actions. If the manufacturer is liable when the operator flies it into the groom's face while making a wedding video (or into the intake on a commercial aircraft when flying where they're not
Re:Will the execs do hardtime when a drone takes d (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that these people manufacture the product is only relevant insofar as they profit from the removal of these regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying.
You are (deliberately) grossly dumbing-down the issue. Let's say I'm a car manufacturer and I lobby to reduce regulations on where we can source the fibers for the carpets I use in my products, or think that the government specifying the resolution on the back-up cameras I use isn't the right way for me to choose the technology I want to sell. So here I am lobbying for less regulation ... does that mean I should be in jail when someone driving one of my cars uses it as a weapon to hurt people? Or when some
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking an action, arguing for reducing limitations on using unsafe carpet fibers, and associating it with an unrelated other action, deliberately killing someone with a car. And then saying, "Look! These two things are unrelated!"
But this is not the point that the parent was making. The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations
Re: (Score:2)
The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots,
There are no regulations that exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... Did you read the article? You should read the article.
I don't need to read the article, I know the regulations. No such regulations exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying?
If you read what I write and not try to make it up on your own, you'll save everyone a lot of time. I responded to the specific statement:
There are no such "regulations which exist". Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots." The only regulation is that the person flying the drone or the observer must have VLOS on what they are flying. Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots."
Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Maybe you don't. I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I talked about what the parent and the article were saying, specifically that there are some regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots.
There are no such regulations.
You come along and say that those regulations don't exist.
They don't. Can you provide a reference to one?
Ergo: the article which claimed that they exist, which you didn't bother to read, is lying.
No, you are lying. I don't care what the article said.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
It doesn't matter if those two statements, which I made, are equivalent. What matters is if there are regulations that "exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots". There are not.
I don't care.
You don't care that you are wrong. I got it.
Re: (Score:2)
The regulations POTUS has been aiming at are regulations that hamper manufacturing, raise the cost of doing business in the US and thereby indirectly inhibiting the creation of new jobs. Compliance w/ regulations costs money, and companies are forced to set aside that cash, thereby hiring fewer people than what they could have hired.
It has nothing to do w/ laxing things like traffic rules, ATC regs and other laws that are meant for society to function more smoothly
I had a friend here in Seattle... (Score:1)
that was put in the hospital for several days due to a drone. It is sad to see Trump not want more restrictions on them. They are dangerous.
Re: (Score:1)
Just tell Trump that Muslims are using drones; THEN he will regulate them up the wazoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now where's the profit in that?
Slimebags (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever I talk to a Republican who gets all frothy about regulations, I ask for specific examples. The fairly rare times I actually get specific answers, it quite often turns out the regulation is on the books because some slimebag company abused their freedom.
They are typically related to pollution, safety, misleading consumers, and/or anti-competitive behavior to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There are indeed some bad regulations (or in need of tuning), but most are there for a legitimate reason. They were NOT invented out of the blue by some power-hungry hippie socialist.
And some of the regulations were actually lobbied into place by big co's who want to keep smaller players out of the market. This is especially common on the state and local level. Look at Tesla's trouble in selling cars because some states require licensed physical dealerships. The Big 3 car co's got those in place to keep out custom and foreign car co's.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but my honest observation is that most of the conservatives I debate with are NOT "detail people". Maybe there is some kind of unseen social filtering mechanism such that I for some reason am not likely to encounter the detail-oriented ones. But I'm calling the pattern as I personally observe it.
Re: (Score:1)
As far as violence in scriptures, ALL the major holy books have violent passages. They also have "get along" passages. Adherents can choose to emphasize what they want and be violent jerks or get along based on what they focus on.
The books are not precise algorithms, leaving lots of room to human interpretation. Experts suggest that the original text was probably often referring to specific situations, but the context got lost to antiquity.
You should know this. If not, you are naive.
Re: (Score:1)
There were already too many topics to discuss so I left AGW out. I probably should have trimmed others.
The Bible also says violent stuff that is more or less a variation of "kill all unbelievers". What's in written scriptures and what's in the mind of believers are not necessarily tightly connected, especially since a literal reading produces many contradictions. I'm not making a statement who about rich religion is more violent, only saying that scriptural text is not a difference maker and is not the main
Re: (Score:2)
1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 - "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise,
Re: (Score:2)
I find that a very minor distinction. A lot of people are probably related to at least one of those groups (and there's more in other scriptures), or at least one could personally believe the "bad guy" is. The point is the Bible often had God give "believers" a blank check to slaughter non-believers.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you have. So go ahead and give us your experience.
When my father started a business at home, the only issue he ran into was zoning--namely the size of his sign.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And software with Y2K bugs still exists, and is just as capable of problems today as on 01/01/2000.
Re: (Score:3)
Republican here, though my answer to you will be more thought out than your typical response.
First, it's important to separate between regulations and regulatory burdens. The former is something you have to comply with. The later is your cost to assure compliance.
A simple example of this is taxes. The former is the fact that you have to pay taxes. The later is you sweating over your tax returns every year, making sure you fill in all the right forms or talk to the right tax professional, and hoping you got
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let me give you my story, then. I run my own small business, and I did some work with a public agency out in New Jersey for a few days, for which I was to be paid X dollars.
So I invoice the people I did the work for. They write back and say that regulations say the following (which I quote, so you can't claim I'm misrepresenting it):
"Businesses planning to contract with any public agency in New Jersey, including state agencies, local governments, colleges/universities and local school boards as well as
Nearly all the "drone regulation" is from states (Score:2)
According to this overview of unmanned aircraft law [ncsl.org], drone use is largely being regulated by the states. Aside from the FAA's widely anticipated and vetted operational rules [faa.gov], there really isn't much more that can be done at the Federal level. The FAA can add restrictions to operators. It cannot prevent states from putting on additional reasonable restrictions, which many have.
So I'm not exactly sure what Trump imagines he is going to do to "help" these companies.
But I'm sure he will. After all, it's not l
Of course they do (Score:1)
For corporate filth, the ideal world is a world where THEY are the governement, i.e. fascism.
AT&T is suffering from Absurd Regulations (Score:2)
Literally something like 10 linear feet of regulations. It makes doing business as a telecom almost impossible.
But... guess who wrote all that regulation? AT&T.
Because absurd regulation is a way that deep-pocketed incumbents make sure they never get any competition.
If they legitimately want the regulation gone, it means they don't feel threatened by any startups, right now. Though actually, I think they're just lying. They pay lip service to wanting it gone, but if things start to move in that direc
AT&T (Score:2)
why is this news ? (Score:2)
The president wants to deregulate Wall Street, deregulate coal, and deregulate every corporate activity in America. So now he wants to deregulate drones and we're supposed to be surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
oh sure, those companies want to do what's best (Score:1)
for their customers.
the want regulations cut down so they can raise prices and establish de facto monopolies.
it's all about rent-seeking.
as for that dickhead Trump, when are the people who voted for him going to admit that maybe the billionaires he put in charge really don't have your best interests in mind ?
The Liar in Chief (Score:3)
Billionaires cheering freedom from restraint (Score:2)
In other news, water is wet.