[betterunix2]

There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencies; in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). The problem with this proceeding is that it is based only on industry comments and ignores other voices, which is the worst way to create regulation.

Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.

[ajnin]

Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest. Taking inputs from various parties, including the industry and the general public, to then make an informed decision about the best course of action in the general interest, is a completely different thing.

[betterunix2]

"Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest."

Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc.

Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with.

In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.

[mulmen]

> Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry?

Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers?

I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective.

I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.

[setecgastronomy]

> There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie

Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case.

> in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s).

Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.

[chrischen]

If you committed a crime and your mother was on the case, that would be a conflict of interest since your mother has vested interest in you.

If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company. If they do, then there would be a conflict of interest.

[PeterisP]

I get the argument about the ex-Verizon employee - the much bigger conflict of interest is that such a person is a future-Verizon employee, as the fate of other such officials in e.g. finance sector illustrates; we get regulatory capture because the industry lobbyists promise and hand out lucrative deals to individual regulators after their term is done.

[Retric]

Employees do have an interest in their old companies. If nothing else working for successful companies is a good sign on a resume. But, high level employees often have close ties to other people in management and a much easier time being brought back.

[charred_toast]

> If you have an ex-Verizon person they shouldn’t have any loyalty to the company.

Yes, and people should be good at all times and not lie.

[ScottBurson]

They don't necessarily have loyalty, exactly, but they do have a detailed understanding of the company's point of view and interests, coupled with possibly a much shallower understanding of the viewpoints and interests of the public.

[colordrops]

ex-<company name> execs almost invariably have plenty of equity and personal connections with their former employer and the industry at large, so that would de facto disqualify pretty much all of them.