14 ms·

After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. This whole situat

• EGreg 9y ago
  That's what I said. Trump selected lots of people like that to head up agencies. They either have no experience, wanted to destroy the agency earlier, or will put their ideology before the will of the people every time.
  • arca_vorago 9y ago
    Let's be clear about something here. These are most likely not organic Trump picks. This is about the biggest donors getting their quid pro quo in the form of cabinet picks due to regulatory capture... and leaks of the Obama admin indicate the same thing happened with him, the same with Bush before him, and likely with presidents for a long time. With Obama it was citigroup who got most of the picks if I remember correctly, but with Trump it seems to be a bit more varied. (Eg Eric Princes sister for Education Secretary, etc) Edit: I'd appreciate dialogue instead of just down votes. To clarify, by saying Trumps picks were a bit more varied I wasn't saying it was any better than bankers picking almost all of them. The realpolitik response I usually hear is how only industry experts at a high level can fill these positions, but I simply no longer buy this argument.
    • FilterSweep 9y ago
      I didn't downvote you. I fail to see a Betsy Devos type character in either the Bush or Obama admin. She even wrote in a tax benefit to her neocon college in the Northeast.
      • arca_vorago 9y ago
        I disagree. She was appointed for two primary reasons that I see from my admittedly limited perspective. One, to shore up support of the evangelicals. Two, because of donations made by her brother and similar people. Once in office, abusing her position to give favors to those who get her appointed seems little different to me than bankers donating and getting bankers cabinet positions and then those people doing similar things. (For example, I can almost guarantee if I did some digging I could find similar tax break schemes for their base under each admin) I feel like just because the neocons are slightly easier to hate on than bankers it causes a bit of willful myopia on the subject.
        • FilterSweep 9y ago
          well, between neocons and bankers there's only one group that actively wants certain Americans out of their own country.
      • monocasa 9y ago
        I mean, Pai was an Obama pick for FCC commissioner.
      • thehardsphere 9y ago
        Devos is actually a perfect pick if you assume the goal was to pursue her pet agenda at the expense of every other possible agenda that a Secretary of Education could have. Whether the skids were greased because of her rich brother or not, she still could have been picked by some hypothetical other Republican president. Usually, the completely crooked, bought-their-way-into-the-Cabinet appointment in any given administration is whoever becomes the Commerce Secretary. You don't usually remember who the Commerce Secretary is because they don't typically do anything, but they're almost always a big money donor. There's a bipartisan tradition of that which stretches back to when it was created at the turn of the century.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      What would an organic Trump pick be if not based on some sort of quid pro quo?
      • redler 9y ago
        Exactly so. While he often adopts the mien of those for whom he is a vehicle, Trump himself has no real political philosophy; every pick is entirely transactional.
        • arca_vorago 9y ago
          That's a good but saddening point. I guess its hella naive of me to imagine a lotus might someday make picks based off who actually is best qualified for the job.
  • maxxxxx 9y ago
    That really seems to be the case. See EPA or CFBP.
  • thehardsphere 9y ago
    Just a pedantic procedural point: The FCC is not an "agency", but a commission with 5 members. Once a commissioner is named, they cannot be removed by the President for any reason besides misconduct. The two of them besides Mr. Pai who are Republicans have been on for quite a while and their agreement is necessary for this scheme of his to work. He presumably has it, otherwise there would be no vote taking place, so it's not like this is merely a product of Trump’s unique intervention here.
    • binaryblitz 9y ago
      I feel like this happens with every president. People like to blame the person in charge when in reality, there are a LOT of other people doing nefarious things behind the scene. Not trying to let trump off the hook, more so trying to get the message across that we have more to focus on.
• LaneRendell 9y ago
  Your comment is much better than what I wanted to say: What a douche canoe.
  • rocketpastsix 9y ago
    Meh, yours is on point too.
  • jdc0589 9y ago
    http://douchecanoe.com http://douchecanoe.com
• slouch 9y ago
  We've only had the rules for two years, and this only shows that the next administration can also pull and about-face. The lawsuits might not even be settled by then.
  • api 9y ago
    That kind of regulatory uncertainty is bad for the industry. Congress really needs to act. ... hahaha ... congress ... act ... hahahahaha ... In all seriousness though: I think it's a mistake to focus on the FCC even now. That's obviously a lost cause. Focus on Congress and the next election cycle. Network neutrality needs to be law.
  • koolba 9y ago
    Not only that, I haven't seen any improvement to consumers in the two years that we've had FCC oversight on this. The only places I see improvement are in markets that have managed to create competition between providers. And that tends to only come from municipal players entering the market as the large ISPs (Comcast, Charter, ATT) generally avoid entering markets that have an established player as they'd actually have to compete.
    • bo1024 9y ago
      > Not only that, I haven't seen any improvement to consumers in the two years that we've had FCC oversight on this. That's because net neutrality was already the status quo (though enforced via other means than Title II classification up till 2014). The FCC oversight wasn't supposed to bring improvements -- it was supposed to prevent negative changes (I'm sure we'll see what kinds within the next six months). As for improvements in amount of service, and pricing, and infrastructure, these will require far more intervention.
  • murph-almighty 9y ago
    I highly doubt the next administration will do that, for a few reasons 1) Once the cat is out of the bag it's a pain in the ass to put back in. "Hey Comcast and Netflix, your fastlane agreement is now null and void". Tell that to every ISP and software company that made such an agreement. 2) It's hard to get the government to pay attention even when there are people sympathetic to your case. Getting Tom Wheeler to about-face was a huge effort. This isn't to say it CAN'T happen. I'd just prefer for NN to not be removed in the first place.
• Delmania 9y ago
  He doesn't. Ignoring the public comment period and making comments like demonstrate he's not acting in the interest of the consumer. There's a good chance a federal judge will strike this down.
  • omginternets 9y ago
    >There's a good chance a federal judge will strike this down. Is there any historical precedent for this? I'm trying to assess the resemblance between this case and such a hypothetical case. I want to believe...
    • Facemelters 9y ago
      Yes. The notice and comment period is intended to prevent arbitrary or capricious decisions by agencies.
      • paulmd 9y ago
        What makes this decision arbitrary or capricious? The administration and the FCC see a policy objective in deregulating the internet, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it arbitrary. It's going to have definite winners (telcoms) and losers (tech companies) but that is true of literally every type of regulation. There are respects in which, say, fracking is not the best thing for the public either (lighting your tap water on fire, etc). The party in charge gets to decide what the best interests of the public are, and what policies to use to achieve them.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          > What makes this decision arbitrary or capricious? Disregard of the integrity of the legally-mandatory public comment process is, in and of itself, strong evidence that there is a violation of procedural rules governing regulation.
          • paulmd 9y ago
• doubt_me 9y ago
  Its now December 2017. Everybody knew about his plan the day he was sworn in as chairman. Between the resources at Google/ Yahoo/ FB/ Ycombinator alone they have the money, lawyers, know how, and have had since November of last year to do something about this, anything. anything at all. Actually, any fortune 500 company. Not a single whisper from wall street. not a single whisper from the private sector. Obviously insane levels of fraud happening with the comments being written by russian bots, fake names, and missing real comments with all investigations going nowhere thanks to shit pai. We will probably loose it for good. it will most likely be a very slow process to make sure nobody is riled up enough to actually do anything about it. I can almost guarantee instead of fixing or trying to solve any issues. Verizon, comcast, At&T, Tmobile and sprint all have new plans ready to roll out will full marketing behind them. It is up to us state by state to dismantle the communication cartels once and for all. But naw, some bot will flag this post just like the other 500+ threads that have popped up since November of last year critical of the government in any way shape or form. Seriously HN get your shit together, absolutely pathetic that it has even come to this point. Ycombinator is who they are directly attacking, 12 gauge to the head, yet nobody around here seems to actually think they are worthy enough to live. Let alone get a fast, dependable, and cheap/ fair price on our own internet that the tax payers have paid for over and over again. If that is the case then maybe we all deserve to loose it. I kind of am hoping we do. I want a new internet with blackjack and hookers. only way possible to make it happen is if the entire country were to be pushed at once to move on beyond ISPs grasp and make our own mesh networks. This is that opportunity to build something new and fresh and in our own control, something that will most likely take years and years to accomplish but once its done and stable enough to handle the countries users there will literally be zero use for an ISP beyond a public utility. THEY ARE LITERALLY GIVING US THE KEYS TO THE FUTURE AND EVERYONE IS FUCKING MOPING AROUND LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THIS COMING. Communication cartels RIP was a good run guys. See you around when you crash the markets!
  • nrhk 9y ago
    It's fine, the real innovation moves on. Telecommunication is a history of openness followed by control, radio, tv, internet and whatever comes next. At least hopefully this isn't the end.
• adamnemecek 9y ago
  The problem with anti-Trump protests is that they will never get physical.
  • Clubber 9y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. It's an uncomfortable thought but very little change has been brought forth in the US (and the world, historically) with peaceful protest. Too easy to ignore when politicians get paid millions to ignore it. Think the abolitionist movement (pre-Civil War) was peaceful? Nope. Think women's suffrage was peaceful? Nope. Think Vietnam protests were peaceful? Nope. Think civil rights movement was peaceful? Nope. BLM peaceful? Nope. Was the Occupy Wall Street movement peaceful? Yup. Was the protests of NSA spying peaceful? Yup. Was the Iraq war protests peaceful? Yup. Was the US Patriot Act protests peaceful? Yup. Are the net neutrality protests peaceful? Yup. What's the difference between the peaceful and non-peaceful protests I listed?
    • castis 9y ago
      It probably got downvoted because people think violence is the absolute wrong way to go about things and assume getting to that level means you've lost a moral battle. I understand why, asking nicely and blocking some streets for a few hours has been so clearly effective throughout history /s.
      • logfromblammo 9y ago
        I happen to subscribe to a rather uncommon school of conflict. Once you have identified an existential threat to you, annihilate it utterly, and don't look back. But be absolutely certain before you start, because that's not a transaction you can easily roll back. And if you can't win, try not to lose for as long as possible. I'm about 98% of the way to certainty that the current crop of ruling elites present an existential threat to (mostly) peaceful human civilization. Thinking about Putin, Kim, and Trump--all with their fingers on their launch buttons--inspired me to think about possible strategies and tactics for 5th generation warfare, and I'm sorry to say that I believe a shockingly large number of innocents are going to die in this century. Your choice isn't going to be a matter of some people getting hurt and no one getting hurt. Your choice will be whether seven billion people die, or just a few hundred million, possibly including you and your whole family. All those "preppers" out there are very likely planning for the wrong kinds of disasters. This is not going to be a conflict whose outcome hinges on the number or quality of the guns, or the number of years of stored provisions. It will instead depend upon one's ability to discriminate friend from foe. It doesn't manner how many guns you have if the one in your hand is pointed at your own foot, particularly if you have psyops-induced agnosia. I'm not certain if I have the fortitude for war. And I'm not sure if I have the moxie for covert ops. I'm not even sure who would be in the smallest possible set of people that have to die in order for the least-bleak future to come about. My heart wants there to be a solution where no one has to die, but my head has already run too many thought experiments where passive acquiescence leads directly to ruin. There's no doubt in my mind that killing people and destroying property hurts one's own moral center, and that those who grow skilled at war become less suited to serve non-destructive roles in a world at peace. I think maybe I'm just too selfish to make a choice based on the proposition that a future might not exist unless I actively disqualify myself from being a part of it. I'm certainly not going to be the one that moves first. But I am thinking about the second and third moves.
• backtoyoujim 9y ago
  no offense ... but stick your "just the way it is" up your desk drawer and lock it real tight.
• jancsika 9y ago
  Are you writing this after having called the relevant representatives and senators for your state?
• paulmd 9y ago
  > After reading about Pai, it seems like he was hand selected to be the figure head with which the ISPs would finally take down Net Neutrality. He's not. He's a generic Republican, appointed by Obama (since the commission is obligated by Congress to have no more than a simple majority of appointees from any one party). The problem is, this is what all Republicans are like nowadays. Any other person that Obama could have appointed would be doing the exact same thing in these circumstances. And in fact, virtually every other regulatory agency and department is doing the exact same thing thanks to Trump appointees. They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. Elections have consequences. A lot of prominent Silicon Valley figures backed Trump figuring it would be an easy tax cut for them, and this is the result. What's that story Trump liked to tell around the campaign trail, the frog and the scorpion? Everyone fantasizes they'd be the ones to come out on top (Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about it!), but there is always a bigger fish. Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism, where buying the government is part of the game. Free Markets are not a stable social structure by themselves, they need government regulation to keep the playing field level. The truth is not in the middle, and not all viewpoints have equal merit. We have one reasonable party whose positions you may or may not like, and one batshit insane party that begins tearing everything down as soon as they're in power. Shame it takes a lesson like this for people to realize that. Sorry to be blunt, and sorry to bring politics into this forum. But that's the way it is.
  • timthelion 9y ago
    How do you determine which party an appointee belongs to? Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party?
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Why didn't Obama appoint someone from the green party? Because aside from the law governing appointments, there is also the Senate confirmation process, and such a violation of both the spirit of the law and the established informal norms would both be unlikely to survive that process, and complicate other matters before the Senate, which was blocking more routine nominees.