5 ms·

I still cannot believe why something as serious as Media consolidation & net neutrality laws are pretty much in this guy's hands.

atonse 9y ago
Well it's whoever is in charge of the FCC. I'm still shocked that he even became a commissioner.
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  In normal times, I could understand that shock. But looking at everyone else that's a part of this administration...
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit. EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS. To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by the 45th.
    - VectorLock 9y ago
      I hope President Camacho wouldn't promote him.
    - labster 9y ago
      Neither of those things are quite true, but he will be taking the Fifth.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      He was chosen explicitly as the Republican nominee on the FCC board of commissioners, so it is most certainly partisan.
    - ictoan 9y ago
      Pai was appointed by Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        Thank you for informing me - I was unaware of that requirement. Couldn't he have appointed an Independent/Green Party to the position, though?
        heurist 9y ago
        What would that have gotten him?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue Yes, he is. > and not one entirely of this administration. Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. > He was appointed by the 44th President That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. > and got a promotion by the 55th. You're off by ten.
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        > You're off by ten. Agh, I need to proofread more. > That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? > Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? > Yes, he is. The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he has to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party? ___ I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.) So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning at all. > couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? No. He could have nominated such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough Republican Senators liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any better. The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.
    - theseatoms 9y ago
      What could it even mean for a part of the federal government to be "non-partisan"? Rogue / representing no one?
- akshayB 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q Days of common sense are totally gone if fast food chain is educating people these days on how internet works
smt88 9y ago
Congress gives the FCC its money and power, and it can overrule any of their decisions. Democrats have already introduced bills to protect net neutrality.
TearsInTheRain 9y ago
Philosophically, the way our system is set up they should absolutely be in the hands of congress. It was a blunder by Obama to go through the FCC instead of Congress.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The frustrating thing is that the Republican party seems to think that because a good thing was done in the wrong way, it needs to be undone, without thought of doing it again the "right" way.
CodeWriter23 9y ago
This is how just about every regulation the government imposes are created. A commission of 5-11 people publish their intent to make rules, have a comment period, they either allow public comments to influence the rules or more likely just ignore the input and put the rules to a vote. As long as they follow the laws relating to rule making, the public’s only recourse is to sue the agency. Which actually can be an effective strategy depending on how the agency is funded and what cash reserves they have. The public can also demand legislation to preempt certain rules as well, but that depends on finding a majority of representatives that haven’t been influenced by industry money.

atonse 9y ago

Well it's whoever is in charge of the FCC. I'm still shocked that he even became a commissioner.

JohnTHaller 9y ago
In normal times, I could understand that shock. But looking at everyone else that's a part of this administration...
- Mononokay 9y ago
  EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit. EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS. To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by the 45th.
  - VectorLock 9y ago
    I hope President Camacho wouldn't promote him.
  - labster 9y ago
    Neither of those things are quite true, but he will be taking the Fifth.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    He was chosen explicitly as the Republican nominee on the FCC board of commissioners, so it is most certainly partisan.
  - ictoan 9y ago
    Pai was appointed by Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      Thank you for informing me - I was unaware of that requirement. Couldn't he have appointed an Independent/Green Party to the position, though?
      - heurist 9y ago
        What would that have gotten him?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue Yes, he is. > and not one entirely of this administration. Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. > He was appointed by the 44th President That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. > and got a promotion by the 55th. You're off by ten.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      > You're off by ten. Agh, I need to proofread more. > That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? > Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? > Yes, he is. The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he has to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party? ___ I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.) So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning at all. > couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? No. He could have nominated such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough Republican Senators liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any better. The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    What could it even mean for a part of the federal government to be "non-partisan"? Rogue / representing no one?
akshayB 9y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q Days of common sense are totally gone if fast food chain is educating people these days on how internet works

smt88 9y ago

Congress gives the FCC its money and power, and it can overrule any of their decisions. Democrats have already introduced bills to protect net neutrality.

TearsInTheRain 9y ago

Philosophically, the way our system is set up they should absolutely be in the hands of congress. It was a blunder by Obama to go through the FCC instead of Congress.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
The frustrating thing is that the Republican party seems to think that because a good thing was done in the wrong way, it needs to be undone, without thought of doing it again the "right" way.

CodeWriter23 9y ago

This is how just about every regulation the government imposes are created. A commission of 5-11 people publish their intent to make rules, have a comment period, they either allow public comments to influence the rules or more likely just ignore the input and put the rules to a vote. As long as they follow the laws relating to rule making, the public’s only recourse is to sue the agency. Which actually can be an effective strategy depending on how the agency is funded and what cash reserves they have. The public can also demand legislation to preempt certain rules as well, but that depends on finding a majority of representatives that haven’t been influenced by industry money.