President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman

“Ajit Pai has officially been elevated to the post of FCC chairman by President Trump, succeeding Tom Wheeler,” Ted Johnson reports for Variety. “‘I am deeply grateful to the President of the United States for designating me the 34th Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,’ Pai said in a statement. ‘I look forward to working with the new Administration, my colleagues at the Commission, members of Congress, and the American public to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans.'”

“He has been a critic of the FCC’s approach to net neutrality rules, and said in a speech last month that Trump’s election was an ‘inflection Point’ where ‘we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense,'” Johnson reports. “On Twitter, he took a more bipartisan tone.”

Republicans now enjoy a 2-1 majority on the FCC, after eight years in the minority under President Barack Obama. The other commissioners are Michael O’Rielly, a Republican, and Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat,” Johnson reports. “Pai is expected to diverge greatly from the agenda of Wheeler, who was chairman for almost four years under President Obama, by taking a lighter touch on regulation. In his speech last month, Pai signaled that he would look to reverse regulatory moves. ‘We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation,’ he said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Hopefully, common sense will reign.

SEE ALSO:
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015
Legal battles loom over FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC OKs so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules on party-line vote – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ expected to unleash slew of court challenges – February 26, 2015
EFF: ‘We are deeply concerned; FCC’s new rules include provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach’ – February 25, 2015
The U.S. FCC’s Orwellian Internet policy – February 25, 2015
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 24, 2015
FCC chief pressed to release proposed regulations governing so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 23, 2015
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Obama’s plan a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet – February 10, 2015
Congress launches investigation as Republicans claim Obama had ‘improper influence’ over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 7, 2015
FCC chairman proposes to regulate ISP’s under Title II – February 4, 2015
U.S. congressional Republicans’ bill aims to head off Obama’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ plan – January 17, 2015
U.S. Congressional proposal offers Internet rules of the road – January 15, 2015
U.S. FCC says it will vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ in February – January 3, 2015
FCC hopes its rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ survive inevitable litigation – November 22, 2014
Obama-appointed FCC chairman distances himself from Obama on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 12, 2014
What does so-called ‘net neutrality’ mean for Apple? – November 12, 2014
AT&T to pause fiber investment until net neutrality rules are decided – November 12, 2014
There’s no one to root for in the debate over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. FCC plays Russian Roulette with so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner: Republicans will continue efforts to stop misguided scheme to regulate the Internet – November 10, 2014
Tech Freedom: Obama cynically exploits confusion over Title II, misses opportunity to lead on legislative deal – November 10, 2014
Obama want FCC to regulate the Internet; Cruz calls it ‘Obamacare for the Internet’ – November 10, 2014

62 Comments

  1. Sad. So much for a free and fair internet. With cronies like Pai at the FCC, expect telecoms to implement pay-for-priority access, data blocking, and throttling. Because you know, if you’re rich, you should be allowed to have the open fast lane while everyone else sits in traffic.

    This is what happens when congress is sold to the highest bidder.

    1. Yes, unfortunately most people don’t understand net neutrality. It’s not some burdensome regulation on industry; it is about ensuring fundamentally fair and free access to all to the internet.

      Imagine a startup company putting up a website. The bigger established companies can pay more and give themselves faster internet speeds. So if a prospective customer is trying to go to the startup company website, it may load slower than the big company sites. That of course would discourage customer usage.

      Imagine if the big company down the street could pay more and get their water faster and more efficiently, but buy doing so leave you and your house with slower water flow.

      The problem with Trump is that he talks a populist man of the people game, but so far he’s just following the standard Republican agenda of serving the rich at the expense of everyone else. He must change that if he is to live up to his rhetoric.

      1. You don’t understand “net neutrality.” You don’t have real net neutrality now and the Internet wasn’t broken before. You also don’t understand unintended consequences and how innovation can be stifled by even the most well-meaning regulation.

        Ajit Pai is a great choice for FCC Chairman!

        #MAGA

        1. No, I’d have to say Wade understands it, but you are too busy channeling your ideology to comprehend Pai is going to make the internet a “pay to play” arena. If you don’t have a lot of money, you will have no chance. AT&T, Verizon and Comcast love this move: now they can simply shutout any competitors from using bandwidth. Freedom of choice just became a lot less free.

          1. I don’t pretend to understand the complexities on both side of the argument. What I can say with a fair amount of confidence that is, if AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are for the change, it’s not because they have what is best for their customers at the heart of their motivation.

      2. It’s not as simple as that, obviously. A couple of cases:

        1) A large shipping company like Apple applies for and receives zoning variances to allow them to build sizes and types of buildings that others may not because of their needs and the perceived benefit to community and commerce. This allows the larger company to continue to grow and provide more services, making it more difficult for a small startup competitor to compete on price and service level than if Apple were hamstrung by the same rules.

        2) Netflix’s service is in part served by low latency, seeded streaming video servers homed inside ISPs infrastructures, enabling their product to be delivered quickly and reliably to all customers, especially direct customers of those ISPs. Netflix pays for this partnership, and by extension, the ISP offers its customers un-tallied data usage for Netflix service. A startup who lacks this partnership incurs higher latency, is more susceptible to network outages, etc.

        Each of these seems like a fair exception from regulation that some interpretations of “Neutrality” would seem to preclude.

        As MDN says, common sense will need to be exercised when applying Net neutrality rules, as it should with all regulation.

        1. Well, your Netflix scenario may be realistic on one side, but my personal experience seems to indicate that Netflix is on the business end of the lack of net neutrality regulation.

          My ISP is Verizon FiOS. I pay for some 100MBps downstream. More than plenty enough for Netflix in full HD (even 4K, if I had the TV for it), which requires less than 20Mbps. When I test my bandwidth using speedtest.net, I get sub-10mS latency and close to 100Mbps bandwidth.

          However, when I try to watch Netflix, I often get poor quality SD stream instead of full HD; or the stream would start at HD, then after a while deteriorate to very bad SD. The most likely culprit is Verizon, throttling Netflix, their competitor, so that I, the customer, would simply give up in frustration and switch to their On-Demand services.

          I am already paying a lot of money to Verizon for my 100Mb bandwidth. Netflix is already paying a lot of money to their CDN for streaming. But Verizon still doesn’t like it and is artificially throttling Netflix on their pipe to my home, in order to make their competitive offering more appealing. This is exactly what Microsoft (successfully) did to Netscape 20 years ago — leveraging their monopoly position in desktop OS in order to suffocate the competition in the web browser market. And because there is no regulation that prevents Verizon from “traffic shaping”, which they explain away as “making sure the customer experience is optimal for all customers”, I can’t watch Netflix on Verizon FiOS.

          1. I’ve explained this to you so many times it is obvious technical issues are beyond you grasp.

            But I will type real slow this time….the pipe between Netflix and your ISP is choked by overload, doesn’t matter the speed you have to anywhere else.

            Think of it this way; all the highways out of town are clear, except the one to Texas where everyone is going. It is the same size highway as all the others, just that place is more popular than the other destinations.

            Ask Verizon if they have set up their local Netflix server (if they even have one, which they should…) for your node. This handles the traffic locally rather than between cities where NetFilx has their main servers. Netflix provides ISPs with servers loaded with the most popular shows.

            I believe you said the same thing a few years ago about Comcast (or another ISP?). I seldom have a problem with streaming except in high traffic times and usually when weather is bad (mechanical fittings are affected by this).

            1. You don’t seem to know much about how this works.

              Netflix uses CDN (content delivery network), such as Akamai, MaxCDN, etc. These networks allow them to move their streams across vast distances, and between various ISPs without hitting usual bottlenecks (in your analogy, CDN is like a HOV, or carpool, lanes on a highway, except you have to pay to access them). These CDNs deliver Netflix streams straight to Verizon. Netflix has partnership deals with many ISPs, public interchanges, as well as many private peering locations that allow them smooth and uninterrupted streams without affecting others. They also have the “Netflix Open Connect” programme, with their Open Appliances, which allows ISPs to localise a lot of Netflix’s popular content. In recent years, Open Connect has been taking on the biggest share of their content delivery to ISPs and customers. Netflix pays solid money for all of this.

              And then they come up against Verizon, who says “Open Connect Appliance? No, we’re not interested.” and simply throttles Netflix’s traffic during peak evening times, not for lack of bandwidth, and not for lack of optimal solution for their internet access customers (who are, mind you, paying for a lot of bandwidth), but because they want to offer their own, competing TV streaming on-demand service.

            2. You got me, Predrag.
              It was all a lie!!
              Congrats, you have figured out the free market BS is just to take money from YOU!!

              One day you will find out Google is no substitute for real knowledge and experience (I’m kidding, you’ll never get that through your socialist head).

            3. I’m not sure what was a lie, and how and where I got you. I simply explained in greater detail something which you described in overly simplistic ways.

              As for real knowledge and experience, I’d like to hear a bit more specific explanation regarding “real” knowledge (as opposed to what? Fake knowledge? Unreal knowledge?). I will agree that knowing something from a personal experience is probably more authentic than learning about it in school (or on the internet, or in books, or any other passive source), but if what you are saying is correct, then all schools would be largely useless; after all, we get no real experience in school, we mostly learn things by reading, memorizing and repeating.

              And on a side note, I am truly fascinated by the political bent so many American posters tend to put on their messages here. And from what we can see, those that put that political bent are largely conservative. What’s more, the moment their post takes this political tone, they switch to rude, offensive language. While the other side isn’t completely inoculated from the rudeness virus, vast majority of personal insults is thrown by the supporters of American conservatives. Over the past eight years, I was attributing it to the frustration of the other side in the office of the presidency of the US. But for the last two months, this was no longer plausible as the excuse: their guys won across the board, there was no more reason for frustration, yet, offensive personal slurs persist.

              What I find curious is that nobody on this form knows anyone else personally; all they know is a made-up user name and perhaps to a certain extent, their posting history. We don’t know who is a teenager, and who is a 70-year old grandmother; yet, this doesn’t stop them from throwing personal insults and offensive labels without a second thought, as soon as they perceive the author of the other post is a Democrat.

              Strange country…

    2. What’s wrong with rich? Quite a large brush you are wielding.
      Quite a few Apple investors on this board are happy to be rich.
      Expect a nice boost to boot next week!!

      1. …but it was soooo much better when it was YOUR swamp, right??

        “he talks a populist man of the people game”
        And this didn’t get us 8 years of Obama?

        Difference is, as you will hate to admit in a few years, Obama screwed so many he lied to they switched sides and Trump will fix waaaay more than he breaks, unlike the man-child who just destroyed your party, and by that I mean he absolutely decimated it at all levels over the last three election cycles.

        This is aimed at all the leftist posting above.

        1. We’ll see whether you feel the same in four years time. So far all Trump has done is outright lie, cause a rise in illegal abortions, and cut a pipeline deal which completely coincidentally of course lines his own pockets. Based on that chances are he’s going to break FAR more than he fixes.

    1. I would say that enforcement of decency is best left to the purely moral institutions, such as religion and common courtesy. The self-regulating mechanism there is shame, guilt, and stoning. Government can butt out. Nobody needs a Ministry of Morals, or of Truth—Minitrue. We could also do without Miniluv, Minipax, and Miniplenty. Smaller government is better.

      1. Smaller government is better if the powerful can be trusted not to run roughshod over the little guys. Unions arose because of terrible abuses by employers. And the socialist aspects of the U.S. government that many on this forum vocally oppose arose, at least in part, because corporations/companies largely failed in their responsibilities to workers. Should someone who works a full time job at Walmart (or any other place) need food stamps? Not if we support a living wage.

        Wealth in the U.S. resembles an exponential curve with a few thousands at the top owning most of the productivity of the entire country. I am in the upper middle class, but the gap upwards to the last five percent or so is infinitely wider than the gap to abject poverty. The people at the top have gotten too greedy – they seek to enrich themselves in the short term by impoverishing the workers and cheating the system wherever possible. They fail to see the likely longer term consequences of their greed – when the concentration of wealth gets too extreme, then the people will rebel and all of that hoarded wealth will turn out to be worthless. Consider the French Revolution. Consider that there is value in treating workers with respect and dignity. There is no shame in service, but there is shame in servitude with little or no hope of betterment. Everyone can prosper.

        1. Unions are not a government solution. Unions are the best example of how the labor force regulated itself.

          Also, small government does not mean no government. Small government proponents would simply like to keep the federal government to its purpose: “…form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

          ALL applications of US federal government resources must be tested against this clause.

    1. KingMel, MDN (or at least the person running MDN) does not believe in Net Neutrality, and, indeed, does not believe that such a thing is even conceivable. (Just note over the past few years the number of time MDN Takes have used the phrase “so called Net Neutrality”.) If, as MDN believes, Net Neutrality cannot even be clearly defined then it makes no sense to try to implement it — either through regulation or otherwise.

      However, the reality is that Net Neutrality CAN be defined. It can be implemented. It can be assured through the minimum level of regulation — as was necessary when various major players started implementing access, speed, and pricing structures that favored a few (and sometimes just themselves) at the expense of other which actually happened a few times in recent years!

    1. Moving along past the Bobbing towel head exhibition we come to the stars and skid marks display, appropriately named for those who has the ability to shove their flag far past where the star don’t shine.

      If the visitors want to they can shove the flag pole just a bit more and see the stars shine out of the red fury of their eyes. Would make a great Christmas decoration if they weren’t so toxic.

      Oh please don’t try to remove the ball gag, it’s a safety feature.

      Hey I like chump’s new era of PI, political correctness, or is it going to be an Epoch, maybe just a 15 minutes of fame, depending on which alternative facts you subscribe to.

      Next up, our best and biggest display, the people of the free and civilized world where you’ll see actual working moral and ethical compasses.

  2. Well MDN just spent 8 years throwing Obama under the bus for every little thing he did or didn’t do (regardless of whether he had the power to resolve the real or perceived issue). Now we hear MDN proclaim that hope is a strategy. You HOPE that telecom crony Ajit Pai is going to do the opposite of all the things he has stated in the last several years? Dream on.

    The difference is stark: we all Obama’s FCC chairman, Wheeler, publicly supported fair internet access. He delivered, crafting regulation that would allow Americans equal opportunity to access the internet. The Net Neutrality regulatory approach proposed in 2015 is consistent across wireless and wired networks. It hasn’t hurt profitability, just look at telecom profits. But by classifying the internet as a public utility (because it is, using public airwaves or publicly owned data networks or infrastructure), outfits like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, & other profiteers are demanding that they, and they alone, must hold the hand on the throttling of your internet speeds. They need more power concentration to jack up rates for people who use data at peak hours, or whatever other stupid anti-consumer rates they make up. It all makes sense when you consider that balkanization always leads to more ways to gouge the consumer. The industry is so consolidated, many rural Americans have no actual choice in internet provider.

    Trump’s nominee for FCC chairman insists on the exact opposite of net neutrality. In Pai’s world, awarding entrenched telecoms is what the federal government should be doing. So access the internet will be priced to absurd levels just like your cable bill.

    This is just the last in a string of hacks and cronies, many who are philosophically opposed to the fundamental missions of the administrations they are now being nominated to serve, that Trump has brought with him to Washington. It makes it very hard to keep his promise to drain the swamp when he’s replacing honest and consumer-friendly officials with slimeballs who have no interest in defending the public good.

    Keep hoping, MDN. All evidence points to bad times ahead. Your willfull ignorance to the damage Trump can and will inflict will soon be clarified. If you love your cable carrier, then expect more of the same tomorrow. Just more expensive.

  3. Screw the libtards.
    Deregulate the tobacco industry.
    Bring back lead in gasoline.
    Make all additives in food legal — with no requirement to say what they are.
    Take away women’s right to vote.
    Get the children back in mines.
    Might as well go for slavery too, while we’re at it.

    It amazes me how people can’t see how great in will be to have billionair cabinet members who’s politics are clearly against the principles of the departments they are heading.

  4. And TWC, Verizon, AT&T are innovative companies competing to improve the internet. More alternative “facts” for those in an alternative reality.

    Consumers, you are just sheep to be fleeced while the sell your information to the highest bidder.

  5. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to be libtards.”

    • January 1, 1971, cigarette advertising banned – Richard Nixon, Republican.
    • Lead banned in gasoline, Clean Air Act of 1985 – Ronald Reagan, Republican.
    • FDA created that regulates banning of food additives, June, 1905. – Theodore Roosevelt, Republican.
    • 19th Amendment (Women’s Suffrage) August, 1920 – Woodrow Wilson, democrat.
    • 1904 National Child Labor Committee forms – Theodore Roosevelt, Republican.
    • Slavery abolished, January, 1865 – Abraham Lincoln, Republican.

    1. That part of the point, stupid belligerent asswipe.

      As the joke goes, the modern, poisonous, right-wing GOP wouldn’t have Reagan for their nominee… or probably any of the others of that group.

        1. As others have noted, all of those Republicans, from Lincoln to Reagan, would not be welcome in today’s Republican party.

          Lincoln would have been horrified at Trump’s race baiting during the election. All of those presidents would be horrified at Trump’s ignorance, even his lack of reading.

          As for JFK, I think he’d be right at home in today’s Democratic party. Today’s Democratic party would be a center right party in any other country. The GOP labeled Obama as socialist but during his time the stock market doubled, unemployment was cut in half, and last I saw the rich and the corporations were doing very well.

          One thing I know: JFK would not be welcome in today’s GOP, nor would be want to be associated with it.

          As for globalism…we already live in a global economy, whether we like it or not. The question is do we embrace it and succeed in it, or bury our heads in the sand and let it pass us by, condemning us to be a second rate nation?

            1. Totally absurd. We are by far and away the wealthiest and mightiest nation on the face of this earth. Our economy is the largest by a wide margin. We have the most powerful military in the world by a wide margin. We spend more on the military than other countries do by a wide margin.

              We are still the envy of the entire world.

              But of course you have your “alternative facts.”

            2. botty is an old fool. Let’s speak so he understands. Bot you are a consistent liar, congratulations. Believe me, I understand why you love trump. Liars love other liars, birds of a feather flock together. We have learned that being a consistent liar does change public opinion, but it does not change the truth. President Obama did a good job, with a republican congress that lied consistently about the man and the administration.

              Since plain talk is the favor of the day, let’s have some. trump and you are old fools, and you must have been really good young jackasses to be such good jackasses today.

            3. Your as big a moron as the Comrade in Chief. I know you can’t resist spouting off on this forum, but why don’t you give it a rest. Clearly you will die with no friends, family or anyone else to give a rat’s ass. You realize no one can stand you, right. What a pathetic little life you live.

          1. “Republicans, from Lincoln to Reagan, would not be welcome in today’s Republican party.”

            The only ones who ever “note” this are liberals who couldn’t stand any of them and would never vote for them in a Democrat primary, so get of the horse, high man, ALL of them have the same basic principles as modern Conservatives.
            If you still are stupid enough to believe this name one major contrast without resorting to your opinion.

            The Democrats have moved so far left I doubt they would choose the born-again Carter, tax reducing Kennedy, or bomb dropping Truman, let alone the embarrassingly awkward Texan named Johnson.

            Your argument is so bass-akwards I feel silly wasting my time pointing it out.

            1. Untrue, TT. Untrue.

              You wasted your time, not because you took the time to post, but because you posed crap. The GOP has moved far to the right of any of the Presidents listed by botty, even Reagan. The funny thing about the current situation is that Trump got elected anyway, even though he is at odds with many of the elements of the current GOP platform. The next four years will be interesting.

            2. List the major differences, as I said Mel.
              Repeating crap like you just did over and over doesn’t make it true.

              I have been a Conservative all my life, the only changes I’ve seen are more acceptance of marijuana, gay people (not marriage, but this is on both the left and right) and abortion in the first trimester.

              Go ahead, tell me more about my party than I know.

            3. No More Excuses, TT.

              Extreme right-wing policies have been an utter failure in numerous states where Republicans have complete control.
              Trickle down has never worked.

              But the right wing now has majorities EVERYWHERE, with a president on top of the pile. So – no more excuses.

              I guess we’ll see heaven on earth … … or we’ll see
              – lots of people out of work
              – an escalation of poisoning the air, water and soil we depend on
              – poor people working multiple jobs at way below what is now considered minimum wage
              – and what I suspect will be even more money in the hands of the ultra-rich and less in the hands of everyone else.

            4. My God you just described 8 years of Obama.
              Do you even KNOW how to read your own writing…???

              Still, no one has said how Reagan would be turned down by the right nowadays.
              On we go…..

            5. Here you go, from his sons, one a Democrat “libtard” as you might say and one a Conservative Republican. They will offer a few “major contrasts”: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/reagan-sons-interview-donald-trump-213149
              If you think 1980 Reagan would have gotten nominated in 2016, you are a fool. Pussy grabbing is “in” as is Baby Huey behavior when doofus doesn’t get his way. Similarly, “alt-facts”, otherwise known as “fact-void”, is in. Congrats.

            6. The dichotomy was drawn between whether the Republican Party would accept him or not, moron, not the differences between him and Trump.

              Reagan said what people knew to be true in 1980 just as Trump did in 2016. Learn more about a subject before you hit the Google button to find something to support an argument you don’t understand.

              No wonder the left is so punch-drunk, you don’t even understand the issues.

            7. “ALL of them have the same basic principles as modern Conservatives.”
              I think if you read the story about Reagan’s sons, you’ll understand that they do not believe that Trump shares the same basic principals as their father.
              As far as what people “know to be true”, that is just a silly statement when it comes to Trump.
              I’ve seen both Reagan sons interviewed on a variety of occasions expressing these sentiments so using Google to find an article that captures the essence of the point in rebuttal to your incorrect statement makes perfect sense to me. I suppose an alternative would be just making stuff up like doofus does.

            8. “Republicans, from Lincoln to Reagan, would not be welcome in today’s Republican party.”
              Writing crap like this is how a doofus makes stuff up.

              Every Republican I know would accept the Presidents y’all listed as “not acceptable anymore”, especially compared to the Warren wind of the Democrats.

              Just because you draw a distinction between different election cycles doesn’t mean the core of the party (Conservatives) don’t still want the same outcomes, they just chose a different method.

              What you are doing here would be like trying to correct the language of a Jordanian when you don’t even understand Arabic!!

              What a pointless argument.

            9. Wow. I didn’t write that but I did comment on Reagan vs Trump and made the argument that their world view and politics are, in fact, not the same according to his sons. Clearly that fact is upsetting to you given your tantrum. Unfortunately, it is a fact. It is only further buttressed by many Republicans who saw Trump as a pretty distasteful character. I guess they are not in the set of Republicans you know.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.