FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Criticizes Companies That Oppose His Efforts To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net)

Tony Romm, writing for Recode: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the U.S. government's existing net neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Pai said during an event in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet. "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest," he said, "but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy." The surprising rebuke came as Pai forged ahead with his plan to end the net neutrality protections adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under former President Barack Obama. Those rules subject broadband providers like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon to utility-style regulation, all in a bid to stop them from blocking access to web pages, slowing down connections or prioritizing some content over others. [...] He didn't spare tech companies from that criticism, either. Companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter -- speaking through their main Washington, D.C.-based trade group, the Internet Association -- have urged Pai to stand down. In response, Pai sought to make an example of Twitter. He specifically raised the fact that the company at one point prevented a Republican congresswoman from promoting a tweet about abortion, only to change its mind amid a public backlash. "Now look: I love Twitter," Pai began. "But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate."

Comments

Cheating the rules

[Okian Warrior]

Let this be a lesson.

He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.

This is an act of malevolence.

Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act)
FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish)
FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010)
FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015)
FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)

It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?

Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.

That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.

The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.

What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.

What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.

Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.

It's the "rule of man" instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.

Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.

Re:Malevolence

[nightfire-unique]

I am with Ajit Pai on this for the following reasons: private property owners must not be oppressed by any form of business regulations. That's my position on regulations.

I agree with you with one critical stipulation:

The abandonment of regulation must be a complete "atomic" transaction.

If the radio spectrum is suddenly a free-for-all, such that I'm able to erect and operate a 10,000W transmitter and establish my own Internet links, and rules governing access to established wirelines are abandoned so that I can use the dark fiber I paid for through previously collected taxes, then fine.

But the dissolution of regulation must happen all at once.

What's not okay is the removal of regulations on communication providers without the associated removal of privileges they enjoy.