3 ms·

> Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, got paid massive amounts of money by them and even lobbied for them so he is massively biased and is working in favor of

> Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer, got paid massive amounts of money by them and even lobbied for them so he is massively biased and is working in favor of the companies and not the people. He cannot talk his way around it...the very first thing done was to allow ISPs to sell our information Source: Comments from your Source [1], which, btw, is a PAID ADVERTIZEMENT, not an 'Interview'.

programmarchy 9y ago
Ah yes, YouTube comments, the fountain of truth. The fact that he was a Verizon lawyer does not refute the things he's saying. It makes him an expert on the law in that domain, which is what qualifies him to be FCC chairman in the first place. Similar to how Alan Greenspan was a managing director on Wall Street before becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the career trajectory of virtually every other federal agency chairperson. And the threat of ISPs selling our information is no greater than it was before "Net Neutrality". This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level. In my mind, regulatory capture and censorship are much greater threats with the federal government becoming involved. Edit: the laws we do need to focus on are the bans on municipal broadband. This is what's stifling competition at the local level and preventing more competition and better consumer choice. That is where the focus of effort should be, in my opinion.
- candiodari 9y ago
  While it's perhaps true that Ajit Pai is no worse than FED chairmen (and the current chairwoman, Janet Yellen), that should be seen as a damning indictment of the Federal Reserve system rather than and endorsement of the current FCC leadership. What's next ? Supreme court judges "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Wouldn't really be any worse than this, really. > This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- > there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level You're talking about monopolists. If anybody could open a telco (which isn't possible for physical reasons) then perhaps this would be an argument. But you cannot let monopolists "offer" contracts and expect a fair and balanced result.

programmarchy 9y ago

Ah yes, YouTube comments, the fountain of truth. The fact that he was a Verizon lawyer does not refute the things he's saying. It makes him an expert on the law in that domain, which is what qualifies him to be FCC chairman in the first place. Similar to how Alan Greenspan was a managing director on Wall Street before becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the career trajectory of virtually every other federal agency chairperson. And the threat of ISPs selling our information is no greater than it was before "Net Neutrality". This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level. In my mind, regulatory capture and censorship are much greater threats with the federal government becoming involved. Edit: the laws we do need to focus on are the bans on municipal broadband. This is what's stifling competition at the local level and preventing more competition and better consumer choice. That is where the focus of effort should be, in my opinion.

candiodari 9y ago
While it's perhaps true that Ajit Pai is no worse than FED chairmen (and the current chairwoman, Janet Yellen), that should be seen as a damning indictment of the Federal Reserve system rather than and endorsement of the current FCC leadership. What's next ? Supreme court judges "sponsored" by Monsanto ? Wouldn't really be any worse than this, really. > This is something that can be resolved as it has been with contract law and consumer choice -- same as with Google, Apple, etc. -- > there's no need for the government to be involved at the federal level You're talking about monopolists. If anybody could open a telco (which isn't possible for physical reasons) then perhaps this would be an argument. But you cannot let monopolists "offer" contracts and expect a fair and balanced result.