News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder. Parent comment

Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by MichaelGG on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:22PM (#11545438)
In Canada, there's a "saying" with the big Yelcos like BRM or Rogers: if they need a law passed, one of their VPs resigns and joins the CRCT (FCC equivalent). That'd explain how they pass laws like the one that mandated that competing DSL providers couldn't price services lower than Bell or offer uncapped data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by wldcordeiro on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:37PM (#11545522)
The same is said here but our current FCC chairman actually has some balls and was actively involved the past few years helping fight for net neutrality (though sadly at first being on the side of the ISPs)[0] which was kind of mind blowing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler#Net_neutrality

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by cowardlydragon on Thursday April 21, 2016 @06:12PM (#11545687)
That was 100% unexpected by me when I heard about his nomination.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by r00fus on Thursday April 21, 2016 @07:41PM (#11546095)
Sadly, he's the general exception. Extraction industry is pretty horrible in terms of regulatory capture.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder by cjarrett on Thursday April 21, 2016 @06:02PM (#11545639)
wheeler is awesome.
[ Parent | on HN ]