Slashdot Mirror


Ex-Verizon Lawyer Ajit Pai Confirmed To Second Term As FCC Chair (fastcompany.com)

Congress late Monday approved Ajit Pai for a second term as chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Fast Company reports. "The Senate voted 52-41 (with almost all 'yea' votes coming from Republicans) to give Pai a new five-year term retroactive to July 1, 2017. Without the confirmation, Pai would have had to give up the chair at the end of 2017."

"I am deeply grateful to the U.S. Senate for confirming my nomination to serve a second term at the FCC and to President Trump for submitting that nomination to the Senate," Pai said in a statement. Pai served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc. in February 2001, where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives.

101 comments

  1. LOOOOOOOOOOL by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This country is well and truly fucked.

    1. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not guaranteed if Trump starts nuclear war with North Korea.

    2. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did breathing into a paper bag help you survive the nice black man doing all the good things for our country? I mean, as a progressive, he let me down but how could Republicans dislike him? He did everything they wanted, except be white and call himself a Republican.

    3. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Funny world we live in when a democratic black man acts more republican than a republican white man.

      Grab the popcorn.

    4. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, if the South Koreans are giving the little Rocket Man the big shrug, then why should we worry?

    5. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He ain't black, he's half-white. He's a mulatto. In the 2015 race draft he was traded to the whites for Rachel Dozeal.

    6. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So you are saying you think republicans and democrats live in different countries now? Never mind, I just realized you said 8 years of Trump; clearly you live an a completely different universe than US. My bad.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the republicans are burning the place to the ground; keeping the goods and leaving us with burned out countryside.

      thanks, guys. really appreciate the 'I got mine, fuck you' attitude.

      shows great pride in your country.

      shows that you really care about us. for the long run.

      (gulp. threw up a little bit.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't last another year let alone a full term let alone a second term. Robert Mueller has Trump by the short hairs and will be putting him along with his shit kids in prison by the end of 2018.

    9. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by lucm · · Score: 0

      Dude, like it or not, Trump is gonna do two terms, unless he doesn't want to. No serious Democrat will go sit in the crosshair while they can be assured of an easy ride four years later. Anyways the Democrats are scattered to the four winds as it is.

      You can kid yourself with that puppet show all day long if you want, but that's how it is. And I'm not saying that because I like him; if anything, I'd personally make a contribution to Sanders if I believed he had any chance against the mob that controls the Democrats. But Trump is going to do his two terms and sour grapes can't do a thing about it.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    10. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because South Korea doesn't have an incompetent, sociopathic, narcissistic buffoon in charge who will need a nice juicy war to break out in a few years time to secure his second four years in the trough?

    11. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to agree. If the democrats fuck over Sanders again, why would anyone waste their vote on that corrupt party?

    12. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, but I'll blame people like you and the failure that is CNN for the provocation of Trump.

    13. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Obama didn't try to start nuclear war
      Obama created more jobs per month
      Obama left a LOWER annual deficit, Trumps is right up there with G.W..
      No, you definitely laid the shit end of the stick out for America!

    14. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah he lives in the 2% universe - you know the 2% chance Trump had of winning the election according to the Washington Post. You live in the "98% chance" land - a mystical place filled with Russian hyper lords and magic unicorns. Not many Saudi campaign sponsors there though funnily enough!

    15. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be careful of assuming that given that most of y'all simply assumed he wouldn't even get 1 day - and probably didn't bother voting as a result.

    16. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Lucky for US he only has a 2% chance of going to jail or getting assassinated, and those chances keep going down the more he runs his ignorant mouth! : ^)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    17. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      It isn't just Republicans though, Verizon has many, many Dems in it's corporate pocket, for instance, as do Comcast. Take a gander at any state where Verizon and Comcast operate and you will find greased palms on both sides of the political aisle. The only two things that have kept them in check are the various courts and federal bureaucrats. It certainly hasn't been the FCC or any of the State or Federal Congresscritters.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    18. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

      We survived 8 years of Obama... you'll survive 8 years of Trump.

      Obama was trained in politics, he was a great public speaker and he had actual policies.

      --
      Just another second banana
    19. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      One of my early acts as a Representative in the Congress of the United States will be to meet with FCC representatives to discuss the structuring of a Net Neutrality bill, charging the Commission with protecting Net Neutrality and leaving the details of how to do so up to the Commission. The language must be clear enough that operating in bad faith against the principles of Net Neutrality will make the Commissioners and Chair liable for impeachment.

    20. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      So you are saying you think republicans and democrats live in different countries now?

      The division isn't between really Democrats and Republicans as such, but yes -- our nation is clearly split into two in every sense except the legal.

    21. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He was trained in community agitating, could read from a teleprompter, and had policies that sucked.

    22. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite rare to hear someone so eager for a Mike Pence presidency.

      I'm afraid that you aren't going to get your wish.

    23. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man if nuclear war breaks out between the US and North Korea, I'll be the first to say, "Oops, my bad".

    25. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      And how did that go? What response did you get? What were the arguments the FCC used? Etc.

    26. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt Pence will cause nearly as much damage as Trump during the very short time Pence has in office..

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    27. Re: LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sucked so bad about policies that pulled the US out of the great recession? I'm not a supporter of his but you are the first right wingers that has actually mentioned policies and no the usual BS that comes out their mouths.

    28. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my early acts ... will be

      GP is just dreaming.

    29. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      In the English language, "Will" is the future-tense of "am". The past tense is "has" or "have".

    30. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I misread your comment. Sorry about that. I was really hoping you'd spoken with them and was interested in what they said -- but I guess I'll have to wait. :)

    31. Re:LOOOOOOOOOOL by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Nah I'm campaigning basically all the time. Net Neutrality is actually a difficult issue because it's like... should we have a law against murder? ... yes, what the hell do you even say to that? The policy position on Net Neutrality is pretty much "Yes, this is important." It's really hard to articulate why it's important (all of the points for it are sort of weak and fuzzy, yet the only points against it are that some businesses can strangle the market and impede progress so as to avoid having to function in that new, more-demanding market).

      The best I've got is that the invisible hand of the market is self-serving (this is a good thing) and so large, powerful players will uniformly remove choice and leave consumers with a false choice (this is a bad thing, hence why the invisible hand needs to be forced away from the forbidden paths, even though it's best left to figure out itself the best path to traverse otherwise and the best way to traverse said path).

  2. And so ends net neutrality, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, we had a good run! 20+ years of open internet! (starts torrenting everything I can before the Wild West ends).

  3. almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who are the fucking moron democrats that reconfirmed this nitwit?

    1. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      follow the money, bribery is legal in DC (although not always transparent)

    2. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      where did you look? It was almost all Republicans. It even says it right there in the summary.

    3. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The Senate voted 52-41 (with almost all 'yea' votes coming from Republicans)"

      "almost all" the 52 votes in the affirmative came from republicans means that at least one vote came from non-republican members.. so who the fuck were they?

    4. Re:almost all the yea votes? by mADneSs · · Score: 1

      According to https://www.senate.gov/legisla..., it was Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Jon Tester (D-MT).

    5. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both from Delaware.

    6. Re:almost all the yea votes? by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

      McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
      Manchin (D-WV), Yea
      Peters (D-MI), Yea
      Tester (D-MT), Yea

      So called "moderate Democrats".
      Two of whom are a part of something called "The ModSquad", one is "ranked exactly 50th on its scale of the 100 senators, from most-liberal to most-conservative" and one is just a tad more to the left of her.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    7. Re:almost all the yea votes? by mADneSs · · Score: 1

      You forgot Tom Carper and Chris Coons, both from Delaware.

      According to that list, they both voted Nay. Do you have evidence to support otherwise?

    8. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you leave off Tom Carper and Chris Coons (D's-DE) from your list?

    9. Re:almost all the yea votes? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Dem's from flyover states are no better than R's.

      they're just as dumb and out of touch. no surprise here.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re: almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats didnt oppose him, they oppose the republicans as a knee jerk reaction. Had Jesus Christ himself been up for a position, the same vote would happen. Polarization like this is dangerous, and I for one would like to see this two party crap end. Real problems exist and making every little thing an all or nothing hyperpartisan issue is ridiculous. Does net neutrality matter, of course. But it wasnt exactly neutral before and hasnt been for a really long time. If you want consumer rights, neither party is your friend.

    11. Re:almost all the yea votes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe cause they voted "Nay"?

  4. Hail the Corporate Overlords by locater16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All hail the mighty corporate overlords. Bow before your nobility peasants! Scrape and bow before your betters, and pray they are generous enough to leave you what little pittance you deserve.

    1. Re:Hail the Corporate Overlords by ark1 · · Score: 1

      Is there a list of his "past initiatives & intentions"?

    2. Re:Hail the Corporate Overlords by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is there a list of his "past initiatives & intentions"?

      #27: Proposed Verizon slogan: "Can you fear me now?"

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. States rights? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much can states override the FCC's proclamations? While the Constitution gives the Federal Gov't control over most "interstate commerce", within a state, in theory the state should have a lot of control in terms of privacy, throttling, anti-trust, etc.

    Let the red states have choice-free oligopolies that overlord their content and privacy; the fools deserve it.

    1. Re: States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are a slave, and it isn't to the grind. That's for sure.

      Nice strawman argument tho.

    2. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that the left is suddenly concerned about states rights...which for the previous 8 years was only a racist republican idea.

      Maybe... a powerful centralized government isn't the best idea. Sure it's fun when your party is in power... but when it's not, all of those same instrumentalities can be used against you.

      Sure a shame Obama was so keen on using his pen and his phone...

    3. Re: States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer is not much, unless they want to create internet that stays within state boundaries. This kind of stuff is almost exclusively the realm of the federal government, and for good reason.

      Trump aside, you do not want to start redefining state and federal powers now, as it's going to result in an even bigger shitshow later.

    4. Re:States rights? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Let the red states have choice-free oligopolies that overlord their content and privacy; the fools deserve it.

      They're not oligopolies - that would imply they somehow came to dominate the market on their own. They're government-granted monopolies. Net neutrality is a government solution to a government-created problem. Basically the government whose initial regulation of cable and phone companies created this screwed up monopoly ISP system in the first place, now claim the solution to their first screwup is even more regulation.

      Most of the rest of the world doesn't enforce net neutrality, but has no problem for one simple reason - they have competing ISPs. If an ISP decides to throttle content from a Netflix as a ploy to try to make the website pay them, all that happens is their customers cancel their service and sign up with a competing ISP which doesn't throttle Netflix. Any ISP arbitrarily throttling content would be cutting their own throat.

      What's different in the U.S. is that government has granted certain anointed ISPs monopoly status. The only reason Verizon, Comcast, et al can try to pull off their "fast lane" scam is because they know their customers can't switch to a different ISP - thanks to the government prohibiting any competing ISPs. The whole problem started because government decided to over-regulate in the first place. And now net neutrality advocates are arguing the solution is even more government regulation? What's that saying about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? You'll forgive me for being skeptical that net neutrality won't have unforeseen negative consequences of its own.

      There are two possible solutions here. Net neutrality is only needed if you allow the government-granted monopolies to remain in place. The other solution is to rescind all the government-granted monopolies, and allow competition in the ISP marketplace. If you want to prevent multiple service lines from cluttering up the telephone poles, then grant a monopoly to a wire maintenance company which installs and maintains cable. But prohibit them from selling service. Then any company is allowed to sell Internet, TV, phone service over those lines for a fixed fee (established by the PUC - pretty much how gas and electricity service is done in most of the country).

    5. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's different in the U.S. is that government has granted certain anointed ISPs monopoly status

      No, it hasn't. The best you can legitimately claim is that many cable companies got temporary exclusive rights from various local governments to lay cable in the 1980s, but pretty much anyone can legally lay cable today.

      It's just very, very, expensive, and any company entering the market has to recognize that it's going to compete with an established competitor, and has to maintain just as much infrastructure as its opponent - if it manages to split the market 50/50 with the rest of the competitor, it'll be spending twice as much per customer as the monopoly was before.

      The government hasn't annointed any ISPs anything resembling a "monopoly status", that's moronic bullshit.

    6. Re: States rights? by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      Even if it were true that the current situation is due to government mandated monopolies, which it isnâ(TM)t, it isnâ(TM)t true that âoeeven more regulationâ cannot be the best solution. Whether monopolies exist due to laws, competition/lack thereof or consolidation, itâ(TM)s appropriate for the government to ensure customers are protected from companiesâ(TM) insatiable greed. This is especially true for companies holding the keys to a resource as important as the internet.

    7. Re: States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true strawman would cite Wikipedia as their only source.

    8. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR: Thanks Bush Jr.!

    9. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black people should have stayed slaves. AMIRITE?

    10. Re:States rights? by erice · · Score: 1

      How much can states override the FCC's proclamations?

      It's funny how lefties have suddenly rediscovered the allure of federalism now that they're temporarily out of power. I'm sure it will go back in the dustbin after the next election cycle or two.

      Don't be so sure. Marijuana legalization is a long-running left-wing states-rights effort.

      (Not that it matters for the FCC. Internet access is firmly interstate and thus federal.)

    11. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side, ISPs are not trying to shut off the connection of anyone deemed to be engaging in hate speech. Then again, they never did the whole 'fast lane' thing either.

    12. Re: States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a lesson. The FCC is already on historical record as regulating the telco's as natural monopolies. Because of this, they have become government blessed or government mandated it really makes no difference as the result is the same.

      https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

      Take for example here, when we let companies own utility poles on public property we are granting a small monopoly on that one pole, they own it, they can say who uses it. Then, we follow up by the government preventing any other business from putting down their own pole, now imagine this scenario EVERYWHERE and then you have a defacto government blessed and enforced natural monopoly.

      Considering your ignorance and inability to understand the situation, you are ill suited to converse with on this subject. You have made it clear that government should be making your decisions for you, and that representative as selected by the government you have vested power in says Ajit Pai is who they are going with.

      Shut up, sit down, this is quite literally what you asked for. Many of us told those like you when they asked for this, that Ajit is what you are going to get, and you did not listen or believe us. You had you chance and you screwed it up!

    13. Re: States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a big libertarian effort as well, but probably for different reasons. I wouldnt put dems and libertarians in tbe same boat on all issues though

    14. Re:States rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While also opposed to any state level restrictions on abortion, requiring voter ids, or allowing school choice.

      It's like I said above, the left is all about powerful central government... until they are out of power.

    15. Re:States rights? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's funny how lefties have suddenly rediscovered the allure of federalism now that they're temporarily out of power...Tell me -- how would you have reacted had individual states simply refused to comply with the Net Neut regulations Wheeler put in place?

      If it's not MY state, I frankly wouldn't care that much. If TX want's to marry Camcast, lettem.

  6. Too bad it's the FCC chair, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 0

    and not the electric chair instead.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  7. FIrst Term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the hell was the first term? His party has only held the White House for 8 months. Now he’s getting a “second” “five-year term”? WTF?

    (CAPTCHA: ruinous)

    1. Re:FIrst Term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >When the hell was the first term?
      Oh, you didn't know that Obama had nominated Pai for the Republican FCC position in 2011 and was confirmed in 2012? Well, now you do.

  8. Re: Kill the son of a bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would that solve? You may not have noticed but he is not acting alone. RTFA. There are countless other stooges to replace him. The only way to stop the madness is to vote Libertarian. It's the only party that doesn't want to screw everyone - rich people would get to keep their money, middle class people would get to keep their choices, poor people would find work more easily when there is less government bureaucracy, everyone would get to keep their drugs and guns and net neutrality.

    You might think that Libertarians would support free market on this ISP stuff but, in the infamous words of Obama, "you didn't build that." The internet is built on research sponsored by government and by the desire and effort of many people to participate. It could have never worked as a single company effort. If someone wants to pay for and build their own infrastructure let them make up whatever rules they want, but the Internet as it exists today is a commons and it does need regulation by government to prevent abuse of the many by a greedy few.

    The Republicans are all about imposing "conservative" oppressive constraints on the masses to keep everyone subservient to whoever are the masters of that cult. They like to control every aspect of your social, religious and biological life so you have to get permission from them to reproduce. They don't want you to have freedom of assembly so they can easily get rid you if you decide to challenge their control.

    The Democrats are all about imposing "liberal" oppressive constraints on the masses to keep them subservient to whoever are the masters of that cult. They like to control every aspect of your political and economic life so you have to get permission from them to accumulate wealth. They don't want you to have guns so you will be powerless to revolt when you wake up in a communist group-think country one day and figure out it was them driving it all along.

    The Libertarian party is different from these. It's about freedom and responsibility. You can read about it at lp.org but looking back on biggest government scandals of the last 100 years... they would have been avoided if we had a Libertarian perspective guiding those decisions instead of "what's in it for me" style politics that characterize both Republican and Democrat officials.

  9. We have our work cut out for us by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    We are going to be spending year rebuilding and improving our democracy and civil society. By analogy, no matter how much you weed, they keep coming back. So now we go back, elect civil folks and make it better.
    Get mad. Don't get mad. Get motivated, be depressed. It doesn't matter. We must do the work. We just have to go out and select some sane and civil folks for office and stay involved so that things don't drift off course again. NO magic - just dedicated work. A careful dedication to have sane conversations with other people of good will even if we disagree with their political views will do more than anything else. Now is the time to look to the center and demand the best of everyone by marginalizing those divisive brutes who would destroy our democracy. Pay careful attention to those you agree with politically and if those people are acting divisive then you have a particular responsibility to call on your friends to speaking with a civil tong.

    1. Re:We have our work cut out for us by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the people had their democracy taken from them. now that corps are 'people', our amount of money donations don't even come close to the 'corp citizens' (united) amount of BRIBERY they are capable of.

      unless something fundamental changes, we truly are fucked for the long-run, in this country. regular people have no say anymore, both R and D are in the pocket of big business (R a little more; plus they think they're the jesus party and lots of their base are too dumb to realize its all a con). the R's don't care about the little guy and the D's pretty much gave up, too.

      this country is done for. it will take a long time to hit bottom, but we're on that race-to-the-bottom curve and have been for well over 20 years, now. no stopping in sight until we do hit bottom.

      sucks to be america right now.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:We have our work cut out for us by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm running for election in my own district. Going to meet with the Young Democrats Club tomorrow evening, although they have a speaker already; trying to get more Facebook likes and more than two Crowdpac donations (or they can write checks). After a month I have over a hundred followers, two donations, and I'm starting to run into strangers on the street who recognize my name.

      2018 is going to be an interesting year.

    3. Re:We have our work cut out for us by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      Buck up dude. A little personal action goes a long way. Call your congressperson, it will make you feel better.

  10. Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ex" implies he is no longer working for Verizon, which as we have quite clearly seen in fact not the case.

  11. No longer a _regulatory_ commission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we paying this guy's salary? An automatic rubber-stamper would be cheaper.

  12. The little guys like being little. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how pleased he is to get fucked in the ass.
    As long as the assfucker tells him they're on the same team he happily opens up his pucker hole to get pozz'd.

    It's so weird to me. I work for a company that wants to fuck you.. poor schlubs who work at "grind" jobs... crying that we can't extract enough money from you.
    I used to feel bad for people like you, I do less and less and get richer and richer. I wonder if this is what happens to everyone when they get rich, they see guys like you begging to be slaves and think "well fuck em they like it"

  13. HAHA QUOTING WIKIPEDIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus christ you main stream media sheep!! God don't you know anyone can edit it!!!
    WAKE UP SHEEPLE
    GOD WHAT A DUMBASS

  14. Not Ours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confirming once and for all, if nothing else has, that this country no longer belongs to us. An FCC chair who has openly declared that public opinion will be disregarded, confirmed by a Congress with the lowest approval rating in history, lead by an executive that a majority of the country believes is unqualified to hold the position.

    MAGA... please.

    1. Re:Not Ours... by lucm · · Score: 0

      this country no longer belongs to us

      It never did. That's nothing new. The only new thing is the 24x7 panic mode in the media.

      In a nutshell:
      - Obama sold you out to insurance companies and spent 1 trillion more dollars on military than Bush while earning a Nobel Prize for peace
      - Bush sold you out to defense contractors and transformed the intelligence services in big brother
      - Clinton sold you out to big pharma and wall street and rented out his last day in office to 140 criminals who wanted a presidential pardon

      and that's just the last 30 years.

      As for the FCC, the previous guy was also a lobbyist for the ISP and telcos before "regulating" them. That's how it works; the Fed is controlled by Goldman Sachs, the FDA is controlled by big pharma and the chamber of commerce, etc. None of those people care about you.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Not Ours... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well, we could have a share of ownership.

      I structured the Universal Benefit in my Universal Social Security framework as a dividend from the economy: every adult holds one equal share in the United States economy, and receives an equal proportion of the Universal Benefit’s tax rate—which I’ve proposed at 15%.

      Although the taxes are higher than I'd hoped. I've got plans for that, too:

      Minimum Rate — The rate resulting in a benefit half-way between the CPI-adjusted cost-of-living increase, and no lower than 10%; [...]

      [...]If the Minimum Rate is above the current Universal Benefit tax rate, then the Social Security Administration must not adjust the Universal Benefit tax rate.[...]

      [...]The Social Security Administration may, at its discretion, reduce the Universal Benefit tax rate by any rate between the Mandatory Minimum Adjustment and that which achieves the Minimum Rate. For example: if the Minimum Rate 14.9% coming from 15%, then the Social Security Administration may set any rate between 14.975% and 14.9%.

      That will eventually lower the tax rate (at every tax bracket and on businesses) by 5%, and it will guarantee at least half of the productivity growth distributed without adjustment in any given year is distributed after adjustment. I need to stipulate that the COLA figure is continuous across years without adjustment: if the economy is down and COLA is higher than the benefit, then the next year's COLA is based on the current year's COLA figure and not on the current year's actual benefit. We rebase to the actual benefit when the economy catches back up--when the benefit exceeds the cumulative COLA.

      The whole idea is to make sure no reduction in tax rate results in a reduction in buying power of the benefit year to year--the buying power must always grow. Americans deserve a fair share of productivity gains; after all, we gain productivity by laying people off, and don't we owe you compensation for the risk?

  15. Why the fuck aren't we winning this argument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm literally confused how this is not going in a sane direction.
    No one that I know associated with information technology thinks this is a good idea. The only ones who do are the robber-barons.

    They are small in number, but rich in money, power, and resources.

    But still - goddamn it, this is information technology - this is OUR thing! Who do those fuckers think they are?

    There are a good many things happening right now that I have to choke down, but I don't think net neutrality has to be one of them. Come on people, if you are reading this - band together. Rise up! We need unified action resulting in unstoppable force brought to bear on those who would destroy net neutrality.

    I don't have much of a clue how we might do that, but I know that it's all about money. The cell service providers are the primary actors in this impending disaster. Can anyone think of a way to put the monetary screws to them, and make sure they know it's about net neutrality?

    1. Re:Why the fuck aren't we winning this argument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why you ask?
      Corporate personhood, as established by SCoTUS, actually names them as "people", whereas no government documentation anywhere describes our species as "people".
      With only 1 legal proclamation in place, the corporations win.
      End corporate personhood. End money as speech. Move to Amend.

    2. Re:Why the fuck aren't we winning this argument? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The only ones who do are the robber-barons.

      They are small in number, but rich in money, power, and resources.

      What are you confused about? You clearly and correctly stated the reason things are getting more insane every day.

  16. Ex-Apple Store Employee Beauhd clickbaits again by lucm · · Score: 0

    Was it really useful to shoehorn "Ex-Verizon lawyer" in the title of this story? Everyone already knows that you're an Apple shill and that you're getting your marching orders from them. Maybe you could serve your masters with a little more subtlety and once in a while pretend that you're just reporting news instead of shoving your propaganda down the readers throats?

    There's people here that have been reading Slashdot since before you learned to speak, show some respect and don't make it another Huffington post.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Ex-Apple Store Employee Beauhd clickbaits again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's absolutely relevant to show that Ajit has long been in the pocket of big telecom. Since when has Net Neutrality become Apple astroturfing? What are you smoking, and can I have some?

    2. Re:Ex-Apple Store Employee Beauhd clickbaits again by lucm · · Score: 1

      All the previous FCC chairman have worked for ISP and telcos. There is nothing special or new about this guy.

      Also I think it's relevant to show that Beauhd is in the pocket of Apple and only started posting about Net Neutrality since Apple came out against it, so what's the problem?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  17. Class action lawsuit against Ishitmypants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit him where it hurts, his pocketbook.
    Sue him out of existence, and the next guy in line, so on and so on until we're at the point of suing Donna Strumpet for being a Russian puppet.

  18. Ajit Pai and the end of net neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Pai is quite strong on ending net neutrality as the Congress has been bought and paid for by the big ISP's. All this not withstanding the vast public outcry against it's repeal. This means the death of the internet as we know it today in the US. Gird your loins, gents: The world is about to change. The free flow of information we now enjoy is going to vanish right in front of our eyes.

  19. Deport him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did this illegal immigrant manage to stay long enough to become so powerful?

    Lax immigration. Now he's making laws that favor his home country of india to the detriment of the true red blooded Americans.

    captcha: defraud

  20. Cry your eyes out, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody listens to you. Nobody cares about you. A rainstorm of shit falls upon you, making you all brown and stinky. Bitter tears streak your feces-encrusted faces all while your wailing mouths are filled to the brim with the excrements of humanity.

  21. God dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay

  22. Oh well the internet jumped the shark anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now it's doing more harm than good and making average people dumber anyway. It would be great if we could even go a week without the internet, most people can't even do one hour.

  23. This is why we need to kick out the invaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an Indian bastard being posted to one of the highest government posts in the land, where he is going to fuck over the citizens of the USA. We need to kick out all the foreign invaders like the Chinese kicked out their Mongol overlords ohh soo many years ago. We also need to hang all the colabrators that are working with foreign nations to fuck the citizens.

    The government, corporations, and media are actively working to fuck over the United States.

    The strong survive and the weak end up serving the strong. The media full of money from foreign power has convinced to populace that it is noble to be weak.

  24. Re: Kill the son of a bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just another apathetic, cowardly piece of shit who can't be bothered to actually DO anything about anything, you just bend over and take up the ass whatever it is they want to shove up there, and you smile and ask for more so you don't 'offend' anyone. Worse, you tell others they should do the same. How about YOU fucking DIE, you worthless piece of SHIT?

  25. Ajit Pai my son! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Your time at Verizon is over. Now you must choose between nice clean job at non profit or designated shitting lobby.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  26. And the rich get richer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the rest of us enjoy licking that stuff on the bottom of their boot.