Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Loses in Court -- Judges Overturn Gutting of Tribal Broadband Program (arstechnica.com)
A federal appeals court has overturned Ajit Pai's attempt to take broadband subsidies away from tribal residents. From a report: The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The change didn't take effect because in August 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed the FCC decision pending appeal. The same court followed that up on Friday last week with a ruling that reversed the FCC decision and remanded the matter back to the commission for a new rule-making proceeding. [...] The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.
This isn't about Republicans, but the Trump Administration seems to be filled with people who's default stance is about making rules that tries to be cruel to people.
I am unsure if it is because they are just so out of touch with reality and the "Rich Guy" solution of the problem seems so obvious, that they just don't understand how a lot of people just do not have the upfront money, or personal power to follow these solutions.
Or they just want to be actively cruel to anyone who just doesn't fully support and love them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This move was designed to encourage build out, which even the hostile courts acknowledged. It was deliberately designed to stop paying middlemen from siphoning cash out of the reservations. But go ahead and slurp up the anti-Trump propaganda.
From the article
"Separately from his tribal Lifeline plan, Pai has proposed kicking resellers out of the Lifeline program nationwide, not just in tribal areas. This would greatly limit poor people's choices, as more than 70 percent of wireless phone users who rely on Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers."
This is literally about making a utility affordable for poor people. Chill out, Cowboy. Those gosh darn injuns need telephone capability too, buddy.
"You are such a fucking idiot. Pai was presented to him as a required Republican appointment, Obama had zero say in the matter."
False. He had to make a nomination, he could have nominated someone else for the Republican appointment. Not that I'm trying to make more of it than it was, he had to pick a Republican and asked Mitch McConnell who they wanted.
"And who promoted Pai?"
Trump did but it isn't like he handpicked Pai. He was elected under a republican ticket, had to appoint a chairman, and Pai had the Republican chair. It's unlikely Trump had ever heard of him, if he was smart he negotiated something from the Republicans for it since Trump isn't really a Republican and never was.
In truth, whatever they rubber stamped to put Ajit Pai where he is neither Trump nor Obama are the real reason for it. If anything it is the people who hold Mitch McConnell's strings who bought that appointment.
According to opensecrets.org in 2018:
Communications/Electronics $853,918
Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,625,946
Misc Business $2,100,106
Other $1,510,654
The generic categories can hide just about anything but that include money for "speaking engagements" and backend deals and agreements.
There's a harmful $25 to keep them right where they are.
But it's OK to hand billion dollar subsidies directly to the crack-whore telecoms?
Have gnu, will travel.
Pai seems to be doing his level best to fuck up the FCC and hand his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold.
And, he's giving his industry buddies bottomless pots of gold by not giving $25/month to some people.
Not sure how you got from point A to point B there, but, okayyyyy...
Do you have ESP?
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers.
It would have limited âoetribal residentsâ to buying services from the telco/isp that invested in the infrastructure, rather than through third-parties that only resell otherâ(TM)s network services... Resellers donâ(TM)t invest in infrastructure, they resell it - if you want to increase âoeaccessâ and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
Itâ(TM)s like a fruit stand where the store owner sells apples for 50 cents each, but lawmakers say they must sell those apples to resellers for 40 cents each, and those resellers turn around and offer the apples for 45 cents. Keep in mind the apples cost the market 46 cents each. These resellers donâ(TM)t bring in more apples to the market, they simply sell the marketâ(TM)s apples at a discount. Eventually the grocer may decide to stock fewer apples or even drop apples from the store.
Being able to buy the exact same service provided on exactly the same network at a govâ(TM)t mandated discount isnâ(TM)t competition - it makes the service non-profitable and discourages investment in infrastructure.
Ken
You are correct. You rarely see a fair representation of conservative positions or an honest one of liberal positions for that matter. Both are spun all to hell and very few people actually understand the underlying issues. But you'd do well to take BOTH with a heavy grain of salt, if you assume both are shady and self-serving with justifications to never be the real motive and both real pro's and con's for normal people (including the 1% but not the 0.01%) to be neutral side-effect everything makes more sense.
"Do you really think the reason for this action from Pai/FCC was to "be cruel to people"? Did you actually read their reasoning for why they did this?"
Well which do you want to talk about the reason they did it or the justification they used to support their actions?
The civil war is a great example. The reason for doing it was to centralize federal power particularly for the Presidency both direct and financial. The justification was freeing slaves.
In this case the reason for the action is that Pai is a puppet for major telecom/broadband interests and this move cuts out competition. Reduced competition isn't exactly a free market cornerstone. Their justification was an argument that more money to the telco would mean increasing build-out. It all falls down when you realize no company the size of a telco is one company or one division of a company. The division which builds out infrastructure charges the division that offers service on those lines. They are required to sell services to third parties as well, in a perfect world, at the same rates (though they play shenanigans on this part).
So either there are enough people wanting the service to make it good business for the infrastructure division to take on the cost of building out or not but their consideration includes all their clients whether internal or external since both are buying services from their division.
That has nothing to do with all the subsidy money going to their internal service, that just benefits mother telco in the form of slurping up all the government subsidy money. It doesn't go back into build-outs anymore than the massive tax cuts they've received has. The division of the telco that does infrastructure build-out won't see either one and they won't build out unless business needs dictate it no matter how much you give mother telco. More likely it will go to fund Pai as a paid consultant after his FCC term and to pay for speaking engagements for him and others like McConnell. Then it will go to bonuses and dividends because telcos still pay dividends.
"Ajit Pai, he strikes me as the kind of person who does evil or not based on his boss"
Agreed but his real boss isn't Trump. McConnell wouldn't be it either. His real boss is the Telcos he came from. After he leaves his position he'll get his reward in the form of paid speaking engagements and very lucrative consultant or lobbyist position from those same Telcos. And you can quite certain those same Telcos are the ones who pulled McConnell's strings to get his name put on Obama's desk for a recommendation. McConnell probably traded some favor to Obama or Obama's staff to get it done.
Like it or not that is how politics work in this country. Evil isn't the right word. By and large the people at the top aren't evil, they are neutral to the good or ill effects. Even if they didn't start that way I can spin just about anything as good or evil and make a solid argument. Washington is filled with spin masters to put me to shame. Imagine how easy it is to self-justify your actions when surrounded by people making solid and reasoned arguments for their benefits? Nothing is that simple, everything helps some groups and hurts others without any universal good answers that don't stomp on good people.
So whether they start there or not, all of these people effectively end as sociopaths and the corporations start that way. The people they hurt are collateral damage and the people they help are incidental good.
The civil war freed the slaves, incidental good. But the sociopath at the top was centralizing the power of the federal government, which he was practically a dictator of. If you think otherwise you are extremely naive. The only ones you'll find who genuinely fought for or against human freedom on the basis of morality are the common people and soldiers up to and including middle-to-upper ranks.
The Pai FCC's 2017 decision would have limited the $25 subsidy to "facilities-based" carriers -- those that build their own networks -- making it impossible for tribal residents to use the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers....The move would have dramatically limited tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service, but the FCC claimed it was necessary in order to encourage carriers to build their own networks.
I don't understand this reasoning -- the resellers must be ultimately buying from the "facilities-based" carriers, and if these carriers are charging the resellers less than it costs to provide service, that's their own fault.
LOL
It helps to notice that nearly all the articles that show up in that search are hosted by conservative or conservative-leaning organizations. Or hype factories.
This one at Politifact describes how people paint all these defeats as Obama's failures.
TL;DR: 8 of the cases were started by the Bush administration and the Obama administration continued to defend them, which is apparently common. Only one case could be considered Obama "overstepping executive authority".
- The Sigless Wonder
Interesting metaphor but it's missing some important details.
For one, the company that built the fruit stand was probably subsidized by the government because fruit stands were deemed to be important social infrastructure. So if the stand is partially publicly funded, why should a private corporation keep all the profit?
Second, when you go to a market there are many fruit stands to choose from. The barrier to entry is low. The metaphor breaks down when you consider that we're really talking about a wire buried underground or strung over roads. If only one company controls the wires competition is severely stifled because digging a trench across or stringing wires over roads is very expensive. Even if it wasn't, it hardly makes sense to have a separate wire going to your house for every ISP.
It makes sense for the wires to be shared and for the other end of the wire to be open to competition. If all the apples were exactly the same it would be more efficient and better for customers for there to be one stand with a bunch of competitors behind it offering prices.
Fuck you, Ajit Pai, you crooked little scumbag. My only regret is that you won't be prosecuted for this and all your other sleazy crimes.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"He was thrown into a unique situation where the nation had come apart at its seams and the constitution didn't really spell out any contingency plans for dealing with a civil war."
It was his war. He had to fight hard and arguably broke the Constitution to make it happen. Afterward he definitely violated the Constitution and outright reshaped citizenship and government. All of it happened in a way that made him more powerful of course.
But the whole thing worked. They looked the other way afterward long enough to support the transition and those northern factories began cranking out machinery to support that agriculture business soon afterward. Lincoln and the Republicans got their ultra-powerful central government and the northern states got a piece of the southern economic pie.
"At least, he didn't cancel the elections of 1864 even though his chances looked bleak leading up to them. Dictators tend to go the other direction with elections."
I said practically a dictator. That you don't dispute he had the power to cancel the elections is an indication you agree with the reality but don't like the term.
"and a sociopath"
Of course he was a sociopath. You don't reach upper ranks of law and politics without being a sociopath. Lincoln was a particularly gifted speaker and writer. I have no doubt if he'd overseen a genocide effort we'd all still be talking about how we saved humanity and the very mention of the group would call up disgust at evil incarnate much like the term Nazi does today.
Do you know the most critical skill you learn as an attorney? Debate. You don't generally pick the topics or your position. You have to be completely morally relative and invent or embrace moralities at random.
I'm sick of the term "Obama Phones". People need to read some fucking history once in awhile, and crawl down off their high horses. Obama DID NOT start that program. Hell, neither did the bush's or Clinton. The evil republican Ronald Regan started it.
What president started the free phone giveaway? The Lifeline program is a legacy President Reagan could be proud of." Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, and the FCC expanded the program to cover cellphone service in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration. The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves.Sep 12, 2013
https://www.google.com/search?...
This bull shit miss representation started when some African American lady was spouting off on TV about her Obama phones. If she only knew who actually started this goverment program, she would shit her pants.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Well, people that live on reservations don't vote in our elections.
The rule, if you even bothered to read the summary, cut parasitic third-party resellers out of the subsidy pool - these companies don't build infrastructure, they simply buy from those that do and sell it to their customers that could just as easily buy direct from the facilities-based provider.
Ken
if you want to increase Ãoeaccessà and drive investments in infrastructure then the FCC change was appropriate.
We paid the telcos billions to build internet out to the last mile and they literally distributed it amongst their executives in the form of bonuses. If you want to increase access and drive investment in infrastructure, the appropriate response is to either imprison those execs and reclaim their ill-gotten goods (stolen from The People) or to nationalize the telcos, and split the infrastructure apart from everything else.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"