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.

9 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Cruility the default Trump Administration stance. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Re:Promoting competition, choice, and self-relianc by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:slurp the propaganda by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's designed to discourage competitors to the telecoms. Nothing is needed to encourage build-out, they've been given billions to build out and pocketed it. They were also given massive tax cuts which were to build out. Instead they've used the funds to re-organize and lay off workers.

    Big Tech
    Big Broadband
    Big Telco
    Big Media
    Big Pharma
    Big Oil
    Big Tobacco

    These industries are not our friends.

  4. Re:Cruility the default Trump Administration stanc by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  5. Who do the resellers buy from? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Cruility the default Trump Administration stanc by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    LOL

  7. Re:It was never "Obama lost 9-0 in the SC"... by SWPadnos · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Ha ha by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  9. Re:Cruility the default Trump Administration stanc by pgmrdlm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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