FCC to be led by Ajit Pai, staunch opponent of consumer protection rules

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
52,886
Reputation
-938
Daps
259,684
FCC to be led by Ajit Pai, staunch opponent of consumer protection rules




Ex-Verizon lawyer Pai will take “weed whacker” to net neutrality under Trump.


President Donald Trump will select Republican Ajit Pai to become chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Politico reported today.

"Two industry sources" who are familiar with the decision said an announcement could be made as soon as today, the report said. Pai would become chairman immediately, without needing to be confirmed by the Senate, because he is already a member of the commission. New commissioners must be approved by the Senate, but the president can select the chair from among the commissioners without any additional approvals.

Pai was widely expected to be appointed chairman on at least an interim basis, but Politico says Trump is appointing him as a long-term chair. That would mean Pai could lead the commission throughout Trump's four-year term in the White House.


"Pai, who met with Trump in New York on Monday, had been seen by many as a top contender for the job given his reputation as a telecom law expert who’s comfortable in front of the camera," Politico wrote. "But his selection is also somewhat of a departure for the incoming administration, which has tapped people outside of Washington for many top positions."

There's been no official confirmation of the decision yet, but we'll provide an update as soon as there is an announcement. We contacted Pai and his staff this afternoon but haven't heard back yet.

Pai does need to be reconfirmed by the Senate by the end of 2017 in order to serve another five-year term as commissioner, but that's likely a formality.

Pai was associate general counsel for Verizon from 2001 to 2003 and subsequently served as counsel for the US Senate Judiciary Committee, the US Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy, and the FCC. Pai was nominated to the FCC by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Senate Republican leadership. He was confirmed by the Senate in 2012.

Pai consistently opposed consumer protection regulations during the three-year chairmanship of Democrat Tom Wheeler, who left the FCC today. Pai opposed net neutrality rules and, after Trump's victory, said those rules' "days are numbered." He also opposed lower rate caps for inmate calling, rules designed to give TV consumers cheaper alternatives to rented set-top boxes, rules that protect the privacy of ISP customers, an update to the 31-year-old Lifeline phone subsidy program to help poor people buy Internet service, a speed increase in the FCC's broadband standard, an investigation of AT&T and Verizon charging competitors for data cap exemptions, and preemption of state laws that restrict expansion of municipal broadband.

Pai often argued that Wheeler's FCC exceeded its legal authority. In some cases, he was proven correct. For example, the municipal broadband decision was overturned in court, and the FCC lost several court decisions on inmate calling rate caps.

On the other hand, Pai also argued that Wheeler's majority "us[ed] legal authority the FCC doesn’t have" when it passed net neutrality rules and reclassified broadband as a common carrier service. Wheeler won that battle when a federal appeals court upheld the net neutrality rules and reclassification.

In his FCC bio, Pai argues that "consumers benefit most from competition, not preemptive regulation." After Trump's election victory, Pai gave a speech vowing to "fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation," and said that "during the Trump Administration, we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense."

Consumer advocacy group Free Press was alarmed by the news of Pai's promotion. “Ajit Pai has been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC during his tenure," Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement sent to Ars. "He’s never met a mega-merger he didn’t like or a public safeguard he didn’t try to undermine... Pai has been an effective obstructionist who looks out for the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector. If the new president really wanted an FCC chairman who'd stand up against the runaway media consolidation that Trump himself decried in the AT&T/Time Warner deal, Pai would have been his last choice."

The FCC currently has two Republicans and one Democrat. One more Republican and one more Democrat could be appointed to give the FCC its typical composition of five members, with the president's party having a 3-2 majority.
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
6,979
Reputation
1,688
Daps
23,185
I think it is ironic that this doesn't get a lot of shine as this is one of areas that will affect people on a day-to-day scale irrespective of how much money you make.

The lack of regulation when it comes to trashy companies like Comcast will lead to even more monopolies and abuses of customers. We are talking about rules that stop abuse and neglect from the companies that provide internet/television AKA the ways most of us receive information.
 
Last edited:

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
52,886
Reputation
-938
Daps
259,684
I think it is ironic that this doesn't get a lot of shine as this is one of areas that will affect people on a day-to-day scale irrespective of how much money you make.

The lack of regulation when it comes to trashy companies like Comcast will lead to even more monopolies and abuses of customers. We are talking about rules that stop the companies that provide internet and television and the ways that we receive information.

Yep, its a massive issue maybe more important than anything else being reported
 

Sukairain

Shahenshah
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
4,772
Reputation
2,283
Daps
17,404
Reppin
Straiya
@Sukairain @Pitfalls0117 Y'all brown cats claiming this dude? :sas1:

Well it's over a billion of us :manny: there's always going to be a few stinkers if your barrel of apples is that big. What you mean claim? Claim like I'm going to ride for him? :childplease: man hell no, I'd never ride for a lawyer, a politician, a ranking member of a major political party; I don't care what kind of south Asian, or whatever other race he is :pacspit: Deregulating industries is a standard strategy in the neoliberal playbook, they been at it since the days of Reagan and Thatcher. Now they're trying to deregulate the ISPs, it makes sense they find an Indian guy down to ride since it's a lot of us in IT

Without getting juelez.gif could one of you brehs school a youngster on what net neutrality is and why it's important to preserve it? :feedme:
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
6,979
Reputation
1,688
Daps
23,185
Well it's over a billion of us :manny: there's always going to be a few stinkers if your barrel of apples is that big. What you mean claim? Claim like I'm going to ride for him? :childplease: man hell no, I'd never ride for a lawyer, a politician, a ranking member of a major political party; I don't care what kind of south Asian, or whatever other race he is :pacspit: Deregulating industries is a standard strategy in the neoliberal playbook, they been at it since the days of Reagan and Thatcher. Now they're trying to deregulate the ISPs, it makes sense they find an Indian guy down to ride since it's a lot of us in IT

Without getting juelez.gif could one of you brehs school a youngster on what net neutrality is and why it's important to preserve it? :feedme:
Net Neutrality means that you have to treat internet content the same, regardless of whether it is your website, or a competitor's website. One example that was a violation is that a few years ago is Verizon slowing down the speed that individuals received content from Netlfix across the country, and then essentially telling Netflix that they will make it regular speed again if they pay for it.

Another reason why these things are so tricky is because Verizon launched its own streaming service that was not being slowed down. Netlfix is popping, so consumers didn't really budge in their loyalty to Netflix, but imagine if this happened years ago when Netflix was a brand new company... If you had the choice between two identical websites but one loaded slower (because they didn't pay their ISP to load faster), you would likely choose the quicker website.

This is an issue because the people with money can always afford to make their website load faster than average so it tips the scale in favor of people with existing money instead of website utilization being based off of the website itself. Corporations and big spenders will be able to influence to some degree the likelihood of their website beating others as a result.
 

Sukairain

Shahenshah
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
4,772
Reputation
2,283
Daps
17,404
Reppin
Straiya
Net Neutrality means that you have to treat internet content the same, regardless of whether it is your website, or a competitor's website. One example that was a violation is that a few years ago is Verizon slowing down the speed that individuals received content from Netlfix across the country, and then essentially telling Netflix that they will make it regular speed again if they pay for it.

Another reason why these things are so tricky is because Verizon launched its own streaming service that was not being slowed down. Netlfix is popping, so consumers didn't really budge in their loyalty to Netflix, but imagine if this happened years ago when Netflix was a brand new company... If you had the choice between two identical websites but one loaded slower (because they didn't pay their ISP to load faster), you would likely choose the quicker website.

This is an issue because the people with money can always afford to make their website load faster than average so it tips the scale in favor of people with existing money instead of website utilization being based off of the website itself. Corporations and big spenders will be able to influence to some degree the likelihood of their website beating others as a result.

I see. So to make an analogy, it's like going out to sea. Netflix have an area where you can get a certain type of fish from, but to get to where they are you need to hire a ship from Verizon because you can't build your own ship. And instead of letting you go wherever you wanted with your ship, Verizon prohibit you from going to Netflix and instead force you to fish in their area. But because Netflix is famous for its fish, people give the :camby: to Verizon and go anyway. For a new place in the sea that's just been found its going to be extremely difficult to grow unless they fold in with Verizon.

Is that about right?

It is absolutely important to protect net neutrality then. :pacspit: at this c*nt
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
6,979
Reputation
1,688
Daps
23,185
I am not going to lie though, Net Neutrality in the short term feels more like a blessing but it has long term effects that are negative.

For example, currently I have a phone plan through T-Mobile and T-Mobile has Music Freedom and BingeOn. These features mean that whenever I watch or listen to content from the top Music apps or Video apps, I won't get charged for the data I use. It means that I can stream unlimited YouTube or uStream video for free. At first this is great because it means unlimited video streaming but there could have been a company that was 10x better than YouTube that was created, but because they weren't on the list to get unlimited streaming, no-one really fukked with them and so they ended up going belly up. Then, 5 years from now, when there is no competition to YouTube, Google might suddenly put (even more) ads on the site and other shytty stuff that they wouldn't do if they had real competition from smaller, innovative companies.
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
6,979
Reputation
1,688
Daps
23,185
I see. So to make an analogy, it's like going out to sea. Netflix have an area where you can get a certain type of fish from, but to get to where they are you need to hire a ship from Verizon because you can't build your own ship. And instead of letting you go wherever you wanted with your ship, Verizon prohibit you from going to Netflix and instead force you to fish in their area. But because Netflix is famous for its fish, people give the :camby: to Verizon and go anyway. For a new place in the sea that's just been found its going to be extremely difficult to grow unless they fold in with Verizon.

Is that about right?

It is absolutely important to protect net neutrality then. :pacspit: at this c*nt
100% true about the hiring a boat part because web content needs ISPs to function. In America though, Verizon will never go as far as prohibiting people from fishing in Netflix area, but what they did do was make the ships that go to Netflix take a longer time to get there (and then at the same time they create a speedboat that goes to the Verizon fishing area).

Verizon gives away ships to everyone for free. If net neutrality is eliminated, they will continue to give ships away for free, but they will also sell speedboats to the people who can afford it. Consumers will generally always choose the fishing site that you can get to via a speedboat over the fishing site that uses a ship, and so there will be fishing sites that are amazing but because they take longer to get to, people will not even think about fishing there in the future. In effect, you have to pay Verizon to make sure people want to fish in your area.
 

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
52,886
Reputation
-938
Daps
259,684
I am not going to lie though, Net Neutrality in the short term feels more like a blessing but it has long term effects that are negative.

For example, currently I have a phone plan through T-Mobile and T-Mobile has Music Freedom and BingeOn. These features mean that whenever I watch or listen to content from the top Music apps or Video apps, I won't get charged for the data I use. It means that I can stream unlimited YouTube or uStream video for free. At first this is great because it means unlimited video streaming but there could have been a company that was 10x better than YouTube that was created, but because they weren't on the list to get unlimited streaming, no-one really fukked with them and so they ended up going belly up. Then, 5 years from now, when there is no competition to YouTube, Google might suddenly put (even more) ads on the site and other shytty stuff that they wouldn't do if they had real competition from smaller, innovative companies.

The problem is that they purposely engineer the industry so only 5 or so telecom firms really make a difference
 
Top