12 ms·

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

115 points by jawngee 10y ago

ricardonunez 10y ago
Any large corporation in favor of net neutrality like Amazon and Netflix, should join Google and make fiber happen nationwide.
givinguflac 10y ago
"Pai consistently opposed consumer protection regulations during the 3-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." Sounds like a real winner.
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  He's the real dingo, not Wheeler.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  It should be an interesting comparison with Pai, an obviously experienced and qualified individual for the FCC post with perspectives that many find offensive, and DeVoss, who is obviously an inexperienced and unqualified individual for the Secretary of Education post, to see which actually gets more done.
  - shostack 10y ago
    In this case I think many would prefer the least effective one.
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Not like Wheeler/Obama didn't back-peddle on the "open-source" cablebox (which was originally proposed in the 1970s). Everyone can make an app instead.
rashkov 10y ago
Is there a sympathetic view of Ajit Pai that anyone could offer? I can understand how he would be opposed to the pro-consumer agenda of Wheeler's FCC. To be sure, there might be a better way of solving these problems using a free market mechanism, instead of top-down regulation which is antithetical to the libertarian/conservative ethos. For example, previous HN discussions have surfaced how some european countries have a deregulated last mile, giving the consumer a nearly zero-friction way to switch between ISPs. I just can't imagine Pai doing anything like this. I can only anticipate him enhancing the monopolistic powers of the big ISPs.
- tn13 10y ago
  I have never be convinced why net neutrality is a consumer-protection agenda. Always looked like a "elite protection" agenda to me. My parents would only benefit if they get a restricted internet at lower prices. Dont think they ar being protected by net neutrality.
  - givinguflac 10y ago
    I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand what net neutrality is. Also, there is no legitimate reason an internet connection would have to be 'restricted' as a cost saving measure, that's just silly. Who are these 'elites' you refer to with their gluttonous 4Mb down/1Mb up connection speeds? (These are the speeds Ajit wants to revert the 'broadband' standard to, which is insane.)
    - tn13 10y ago
      Let him reduce it to 64Kbps what difference does it make ? Call an elephant a horse will not make it a horse. As users we constantly want more bandwidth and ISP that fails to provide it will go out of business nevertheless.
      - serge2k 10y ago
        ooooooh you are one of those "FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT" people. Well, ignoring that the whole idea just makes me suspect you live in a fantasy world, ISPs frequently have regional monopolies. They aren't going out of business because thye provide shitty service because the internet has become something people rely on. Losing it would be a big blow. Comcast thrives despite being absolutely despised by a large percentage of their customer base.
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Can somebody explain to me what the reclassification of internet from "information services" to "common carrier" accomplished (besides cellphone companies buying consumer satellite tv companies)?
- wayzel 10y ago
  When VOIP and other communication services started to sprout in the 1990s the FCC let them coast without taxation for about a decade. They then reclassified all such services as common carriers so that they could be taxed as such. Common carriers must pay into various tax funds such as LNP (which funds citizens' rights to port their phone numbers between carriers), NANPA (which maintains the North American Numbering scheme), and USF (which subsidizes telephony buildout or services to areas that the private market would otherwise ignore). Most consumers see these as various charges as a roughly 20% up-charge on their bill.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    You're referring to only one aspect of common carrier status. There's a whole host of regulations that apply - or not - if you're a common carrier. And I'm sorry are you honestly claiming that those cost 20% of an internet bill? Because of so you're gonna have to cite a source for that one. Between your selective choice for what you claim is CC status, combined with a claim that a $50 monthly bill is $10 attributable to CC, makes me think you're pushing an agenda rather than sharing facts.
    - wayzel 10y ago
      I should have been more clear: those taxes relate to communication services (VOIP) that interconnect with the public telecommunications network, e.g let you call phone numbers. They are not taxes for Internet access. And yes, there are a large number of other more restrictive regulations. Sources here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335228A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335228A1.p... (warning - PDF)
- rashkov 10y ago
nova22033 10y ago
He worked for Jeff Sessions...no no surprise there..
guelo 10y ago
I wonder if Netflix will survive this as Comcast will be able to just cut them off and offer customers their own service.
- wmf 10y ago
  Comcast is already extorting as much money as they want from Netflix; it's not clear that Comcast would benefit from cutting them off.
  - guelo 10y ago
    Without netflix it would stop a lot of cordcuting.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
This is bad for consumers. Everything I have read of what this guy has said, it's like he purposely opposes anything pro consumer.
- wmeredith 10y ago
  He supports his paying constituents: big telecom.
wfo 10y ago
Nearly everything Trump will do, every appointment he will make, every order he will sign will be very bad for the vast majority of Americans and the country as a whole. He is not an honest, earnest, free-market loving Republican with good intentions and a desire to see the country succeed. I don't know why there's this sense that in the tech community we are immune. We have a beautiful free and open technical world, where everyone has equal access to information and commerce, where large companies cannot use their power to obliterate startups so startups can thrive, where competition is healthy and the consumer wins. Don't fool yourself into thinking it doesn't depend on a favorable government to exist. Don't fool yourself into thinking Trump won't do his best to get rid of it.
- ricardonunez 10y ago
  I think so, he is big in old money. Oil, coal, bringing factories back, etc., sparking innovation was not one of the things he campaigned. He is going to make immigration more difficult, and people will not have confidence in coming here. Other countries are already investing on it, so they will take advantage.
neduma 10y ago
I dont want to sound like a broken record but if you want to help protect Net Neutrality you should support groups like ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality. https://www.aclu.org/ https://www.aclu.org/ https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ https://www.freepress.net/ https://www.freepress.net/ also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/ https://smile.amazon.com/

115 points by jawngee 10y ago

Any large corporation in favor of net neutrality like Amazon and Netflix, should join Google and make fiber happen nationwide.

givinguflac 10y ago

"Pai consistently opposed consumer protection regulations during the 3-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." Sounds like a real winner.

theandrewbailey 10y ago
He's the real dingo, not Wheeler.
6stringmerc 10y ago
It should be an interesting comparison with Pai, an obviously experienced and qualified individual for the FCC post with perspectives that many find offensive, and DeVoss, who is obviously an inexperienced and unqualified individual for the Secretary of Education post, to see which actually gets more done.
- shostack 10y ago
  In this case I think many would prefer the least effective one.
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Not like Wheeler/Obama didn't back-peddle on the "open-source" cablebox (which was originally proposed in the 1970s). Everyone can make an app instead.

rashkov 10y ago

Is there a sympathetic view of Ajit Pai that anyone could offer? I can understand how he would be opposed to the pro-consumer agenda of Wheeler's FCC. To be sure, there might be a better way of solving these problems using a free market mechanism, instead of top-down regulation which is antithetical to the libertarian/conservative ethos. For example, previous HN discussions have surfaced how some european countries have a deregulated last mile, giving the consumer a nearly zero-friction way to switch between ISPs. I just can't imagine Pai doing anything like this. I can only anticipate him enhancing the monopolistic powers of the big ISPs.

tn13 10y ago
I have never be convinced why net neutrality is a consumer-protection agenda. Always looked like a "elite protection" agenda to me. My parents would only benefit if they get a restricted internet at lower prices. Dont think they ar being protected by net neutrality.
- givinguflac 10y ago
  I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand what net neutrality is. Also, there is no legitimate reason an internet connection would have to be 'restricted' as a cost saving measure, that's just silly. Who are these 'elites' you refer to with their gluttonous 4Mb down/1Mb up connection speeds? (These are the speeds Ajit wants to revert the 'broadband' standard to, which is insane.)
  - tn13 10y ago
    Let him reduce it to 64Kbps what difference does it make ? Call an elephant a horse will not make it a horse. As users we constantly want more bandwidth and ISP that fails to provide it will go out of business nevertheless.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      ooooooh you are one of those "FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT" people. Well, ignoring that the whole idea just makes me suspect you live in a fantasy world, ISPs frequently have regional monopolies. They aren't going out of business because thye provide shitty service because the internet has become something people rely on. Losing it would be a big blow. Comcast thrives despite being absolutely despised by a large percentage of their customer base.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

Can somebody explain to me what the reclassification of internet from "information services" to "common carrier" accomplished (besides cellphone companies buying consumer satellite tv companies)?

wayzel 10y ago
When VOIP and other communication services started to sprout in the 1990s the FCC let them coast without taxation for about a decade. They then reclassified all such services as common carriers so that they could be taxed as such. Common carriers must pay into various tax funds such as LNP (which funds citizens' rights to port their phone numbers between carriers), NANPA (which maintains the North American Numbering scheme), and USF (which subsidizes telephony buildout or services to areas that the private market would otherwise ignore). Most consumers see these as various charges as a roughly 20% up-charge on their bill.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  You're referring to only one aspect of common carrier status. There's a whole host of regulations that apply - or not - if you're a common carrier. And I'm sorry are you honestly claiming that those cost 20% of an internet bill? Because of so you're gonna have to cite a source for that one. Between your selective choice for what you claim is CC status, combined with a claim that a $50 monthly bill is $10 attributable to CC, makes me think you're pushing an agenda rather than sharing facts.
  - wayzel 10y ago
    I should have been more clear: those taxes relate to communication services (VOIP) that interconnect with the public telecommunications network, e.g let you call phone numbers. They are not taxes for Internet access. And yes, there are a large number of other more restrictive regulations. Sources here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335228A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335228A1.p... (warning - PDF)
rashkov 10y ago

nova22033 10y ago

He worked for Jeff Sessions...no no surprise there..

guelo 10y ago

I wonder if Netflix will survive this as Comcast will be able to just cut them off and offer customers their own service.

wmf 10y ago
Comcast is already extorting as much money as they want from Netflix; it's not clear that Comcast would benefit from cutting them off.
- guelo 10y ago
  Without netflix it would stop a lot of cordcuting.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

This is bad for consumers. Everything I have read of what this guy has said, it's like he purposely opposes anything pro consumer.

wmeredith 10y ago
He supports his paying constituents: big telecom.

wfo 10y ago

Nearly everything Trump will do, every appointment he will make, every order he will sign will be very bad for the vast majority of Americans and the country as a whole. He is not an honest, earnest, free-market loving Republican with good intentions and a desire to see the country succeed. I don't know why there's this sense that in the tech community we are immune. We have a beautiful free and open technical world, where everyone has equal access to information and commerce, where large companies cannot use their power to obliterate startups so startups can thrive, where competition is healthy and the consumer wins. Don't fool yourself into thinking it doesn't depend on a favorable government to exist. Don't fool yourself into thinking Trump won't do his best to get rid of it.

ricardonunez 10y ago
I think so, he is big in old money. Oil, coal, bringing factories back, etc., sparking innovation was not one of the things he campaigned. He is going to make immigration more difficult, and people will not have confidence in coming here. Other countries are already investing on it, so they will take advantage.

neduma 10y ago

I dont want to sound like a broken record but if you want to help protect Net Neutrality you should support groups like ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality. https://www.aclu.org/ https://www.aclu.org/ https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ https://www.freepress.net/ https://www.freepress.net/ also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/ https://smile.amazon.com/