Ajit Pai to replace Tom Wheeler as head of the FCC

[Shawn Knight]

President Donald Trump has officially appointed Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, to replace the outgoing Tom Wheeler as the 34^th chairman of the agency.

In a brief statement on the matter, Pai said he is deeply grateful to President Trump for the appointment and looks forward to working with the new administration, his colleagues at the commission, members of Congress and the American public to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans.

Pai was nominated for a Republican Party position by Barack Obama in 2011 and was confirmed by the Senate a year later. As The Verge correctly points out, just because Pai was an Obama pick doesn’t mean he shares the same views as the former leader of the free world. Instead, it’s simply tradition to appoint two of the five FCC seats to the opposing party which is exactly what Obama did with Pai.

Whereas Wheeler was a huge proponent of net neutrality, Pai is essentially the exact opposite.

During a speaking engagement last month, Pai said that on the day that the Title II Order (the Open Internet Order) was adopted, he didn’t know whether the plan would be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress or overturned by a future commission.

The said, Pai added at that time that he was more confident that ever that net neutrality’s days were numbered and that their general regulatory approach beginning in 2017 will be a more sober one that is guided by evidence, sound economic analysis and a good dose of humility.

Image courtesy Bloomberg News

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67880-ajit-pai-replace-tom-wheeler-head-fcc.html

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

"will be a more sober one that is guided by evidence, sound economic analysis and a good dose of humility".
Not to forget a MUCH bigger dose of BS, just to line his and his cronies pockets further for good measure.

 

[ThanosPAS]

Wasn't he the only member of the committee back then where he was against the Net Neutrality ruling? 4-1 if I'm not mistaken?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Wasn't he the only member of the committee back then where he was against the Net Neutrality ruling? 4-1 if I'm not mistaken?

Yep. Huge corporate cronie. But what else can we expect of an ex-verizon employee?

 

[Cycloid Torus]

If it lowers barriers to competition, it may still be a good thing.

 

[Uncle Al]

But if it allows the companies to continue to fleece the American taxpayer with phony fee's and reduced services ... the only benefit will be to the companies.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

But if it allows the companies to continue to fleece the American taxpayer with phony fee's and reduced services ... the only benefit will be to the companies.

Here's 1 big reason net neutrality is a bad idea. It keeps companies from offering free services. Right now we have free video streaming on some cell plans - free netflix and free music streaming. If you're someone who doesn't have a lot of money that's the difference between access to Netflix and no access to Netflix. You can't afford a wired Broadband connection from Comcast AND pay for your T-mobile bill so you can have internet outside the home. And with free video streaming there's no point - the result has been a decrease in wired internet connected households. Why pay twice?

Let the companies compete for our business - not put in place models in the name of equality that really just cap anyone from giving us a deal or something free. Especially when the poor are the ones hurt the most.

And in the future we'll have something called 'IP Multicast' it's TV over the internet without bogging down the network. That can't happen if net-neutrality is in force.

Govt mandates that try to make things 'fair' and 'equal' don't prop up the bottom, they just stop everyone from moving up.

 

[Moneyd623]

But if it allows the companies to continue to fleece the American taxpayer with phony fee's and reduced services ... the only benefit will be to the companies.

Here's 1 big reason net neutrality is a bad idea. It keeps companies from offering free services. Right now we have free video streaming on some cell plans - free netflix and free music streaming. If you're someone who doesn't have a lot of money that's the difference between access to Netflix and no access to Netflix. You can't afford a wired Broadband connection from Comcast AND pay for your T-mobile bill so you can have internet outside the home. And with free video streaming there's no point - the result has been a decrease in wired internet connected households. Why pay twice?

Let the companies compete for our business - not put in place models in the name of equality that really just cap anyone from giving us a deal or something free. Especially when the poor are the ones hurt the most.

And in the future we'll have something called 'IP Multicast' it's TV over the internet without bogging down the network. That can't happen if net-neutrality is in force.

Govt mandates that try to make things 'fair' and 'equal' don't prop up the bottom, they just stop everyone from moving up.

T-Mobile Binge on program would like a word with you. It provides free services (Netflix and the like don't count towards your data cap), and it does NOT violate net neutrality because ANY company can participate in the binge on program. Without net neutrality, only the companies who are willing to line the right pockets will be able to participate. Thus as a consumer, we will likely get less for our money.

 

[wiyosaya]

...

And in the future we'll have something called 'IP Multicast' it's TV over the internet without bogging down the network. That can't happen if net-neutrality is in force.

...

Bullcrap! Look at the spec for ATSC 3.0 - IF ATSC 3.0 ever gets rolled out now with this FCC head approved by Verizon.

 

[wiyosaya]

But if it allows the companies to continue to fleece the American taxpayer with phony fee's and reduced services ... the only benefit will be to the companies.

And you are expecting something different since this guy has the resounding approval of Verizon?

 

[wiyosaya]

If it lowers barriers to competition, it may still be a good thing.

Unfortunately, it is likely to allow those who can pay to have "priority access" and those who can't pay, well, who cares, right?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

T-Mobile Binge on program would like a word with you. It provides free services (Netflix and the like don't count towards your data cap), and it does NOT violate net neutrality because ANY company can participate in the binge on program. Without net neutrality, only the companies who are willing to line the right pockets will be able to participate. Thus as a consumer, we will likely get less for our money.

So I went to read up about and learn something - I learned that just about every news organization is completely against net neutrality and therefore you cant' actually learn anything because their 'news' is more about trashing it than explaining it. I was reminded why CNN is horrible.

Then I found a story on Forbes, which is about the media and why they are hating on Ajit Paj. They specifically mention the Verge as one of the sites getting it wrong (The site Techspot quoted above).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydo...-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#838ee524c7f2

Figuring out what's actually real nowadays has become way too hard... I wish news sites would prioritize the news over promoting their agendas.