NRA gives Ajit Pai the Courage Under Fire award for "saving the internet"

William Gayde

TS Addict
Staff member

Two unlikely and highly controversial figures met at the Conservative Political Action Conference today as the National Rifle Association (NRA) awarded FCC Chairman Ajit Pai with the Courage Under Fire Award. Pai has been facing continued disapproval over his decision to repeal net neutrality while the NRA has received widespread criticism for their response and viewpoints relating to recent school shootings.

Pai was scheduled to speak at the conference on a panel discussion about "how the FCC is paving the way for innovation," but was surprised at receiving the award. It also includes a handmade Kentucky long gun which will be stored at the NRA's museum since it could not be brought on stage.

In presenting the award, Dan Schneider, the executive director of the American Conservative Union, proclaimed that "Ajit Pai, as you probably already know, saved the internet." He went on to praise Pai for preserving free speech rights, liberating the internet, and giving it back to the people. He also called Pai the "most courageous, heroic person that I know."

The award, given in honor of former NRA president Charlton Heston, is not given every year. Instead, it is only awarded when the NRA believes someone has stood up under pressure with grace, dignity, and principled discipline. Pai was given the award for his work to repeal net neutrality legislation, a move that has made him unpopular with the majority of the nation. The NRA never explained how this move preserves free speech rights.

Previous winners of this award include Phyllis Schlafly, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Pence.

Permalink to story.

 

psycros

TS Evangelist
There were, in fact, aspects of formally recognized net neutrality that *could* have been used by the government to suppress free speech online although Pai and others promised that would never happen. However, there is just as much potential for economic repression in a 'net that's controlled by Big Telecom. Choose your poison, I guess..and apparently the NRA is more concerned about government overreach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Misagt and wiyosaya

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Ajit Pai is currently under investigation by the FCC for collusion with the Sinclair broadcast group.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/ajit-pai-faces-investigation-into-moves-that-benefit-sinclair-broadcasting/

Pai eased rules that prevented any single media company from owning a majority of Local TV stations (Sinclair will own 72% after it's purchase of Tribune completes). The previous rule allowed a maximum of 39%. In addition, Pai passed a rule that removes the requirement of needing a local presence in order to boradcast as "local news". Now Sinclair can broadcast "local news" to a majority of Americans and it doesn't even have to exist in your local market.

Pai has met with Sinclair executives multiple times before becoming commissioner and has refused requests by members of the house to turn over documents detailing his communications with Sinclair.

Pai has described the accusations as "baseless," pointing out that he has long favored deregulation. What he does not address is his direct contact with executives of Sinclair nor why he refuses to turn over his communications with them.

The American public should ask for transparency with all government organizations and this extends to the FCC. Pai should recuse himself from the investigation and any policy making as it pertains to the Sinclair broadcast group. This investigation will likely take awhile to complete.
 
Last edited:

Danny101

TS Evangelist
The award is fitting for what it is ascribed. As to the benefits of net neutrality, I don't know. Arguments on both sides are spin and convoluted and the potential for corruption is present irregardless to whether net neutrality is enforced or not. The choice is to trust either the government or the telecoms and quite frankly I trust neither. Maybe the only solution is a commission comprising of government officials and industry leaders on a panel to vote in rules and somebody has to take the fall for tiebreakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilwaukeeMike

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
The award is fitting for what it is ascribed. As to the benefits of net neutrality, I don't know. Arguments on both sides are spin and convoluted and the potential for corruption is present irregardless to whether net neutrality is enforced or not. The choice is to trust either the government or the telecoms and quite frankly I trust neither. Maybe the only solution is a commission comprising of government officials and industry leaders on a panel to vote in rules and somebody has to take the fall for tiebreakers.
Usually FCC officials are from the industry. For example, Pai is a former Verizon lawyer. The problem here isn't not knowing enough about the subject matter, it's more him not being an elected official and not having to be accountable or transparent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Kashim

TS Addict
Saving the internet means selling it to the highest bidder? That's pretty much what he did.

Like anyone in the hard-core NRA even knows what the Internet is...
Yeah, those people live off the grid in an underground bunker surrounded by guns and ammo haha

Ajit Pai is currently under investigation by the FCC for collusion with the Sinclair broadcast group.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/ajit-pai-faces-investigation-into-moves-that-benefit-sinclair-broadcasting/

Pai eased rules that prevented any single media company from owning a majority of Local TV stations (Sinclair will own 72% after it's purchase of Tribune completes). The previous rule allowed a maximum of 39%. In addition, Pai passed a rule that removes the requirement of needing a local presence in order to boradcast as "local news". Now Sinclair can broadcast "local news" to a majority of Americans and it doesn't even have to exist in your local market.

Pai has meet with Sinclair executives multiple times before becoming commissioner and has refused requests by members of the house to turn over documents detailing his communications with this Sinclair.

Pai has described the accusations as "baseless," pointing out that he has long favored deregulation. What he does not address is his direct contact with executives of Sinclair nor why he refuses to turn over his communications with them.

The American public should ask for transparency with all government organizations and this extends to the FCC. Pai should recuse himself from the investigation and any policy making as it pertains to the Sinclair broadcast group. This investigation will likely take awhile to complete.
Everything you just described favors the current party in power including Orange McDumbass in the White House. So we already know how any investigation or inquiry regarding this matter will end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MilwaukeeMike

TS Evangelist
I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.
Lobbyist from big business paid for this cutting of net neutrality, who suffers? Everyone but big business, example: home depot will pay local isps for higher bandwidth, a local hardware store can't afford to pay the piper. Result: home depots website will load nice n fast, the local business website will be slow if it loads at all.

Another example, ISP can make you pay extra to use netflix since it takes up so much bandwidth. The only people trying to get rid of net neutrality are big business lobbyist who want to stomp out the little guy. They own the GOP sadly.
 

Darth Shiv

TS Evangelist
I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.
They haven't got less power. They have just lowered the regulation of the ISPs with respect to the rules they must obide by. They have the power to reinstate it.

It's like saying "I could hit you with this hammer but I won't" and saying that is having "less power" than when they chose to actually hit you with the hammer.
 

Milkyjoe

TS Enthusiast
I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.
I know everyone hates him... and hates the NRA even more. But the NRA is right. He has stood up under pressure - pretty much every news outlet trashes him and his family is harassed by the news and protesters alike.

As much as most disagree with him , it's admirable to see someone work so hard for something he believes in especially when getting what he wants will result in his organization (the govt) having less power.
Why are you saying that Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and it's ok ajai pie is getting an award for being an a hole?
 

MilwaukeeMike

TS Evangelist
They haven't got less power. They have just lowered the regulation of the ISPs with respect to the rules they must obide by. They have the power to reinstate it.

It's like saying "I could hit you with this hammer but I won't" and saying that is having "less power" than when they chose to actually hit you with the hammer.
Well... which is it? Did the govt give up the power to enforce NN and therefore Pai should be commended for giving up that power?
Or do they still have the power to enforce NN, in which case there's no reason to hate Ajit Pai because they could enforce it anytime they want anyway.
 

GeforcerFX

TS Evangelist
Or do they still have the power to enforce NN, in which case there's no reason to hate Ajit Pai because they could enforce it anytime they want anyway.
No, he will get hated because it's not currently being enforced. For some people they won't be happy until the internet is a national asset 100% controlled by the US government (you know that group that has a great track record) instead of those evil corporations..... Before everyone turns to rage mode, I don't like either option that we have NN was crap and no NN is prob gonna result in a lot of law suits to keep the status qoe, neither option is nice.
 

Darth Shiv

TS Evangelist
No, he will get hated because it's not currently being enforced. For some people they won't be happy until the internet is a national asset 100% controlled by the US government (you know that group that has a great track record) instead of those evil corporations..... Before everyone turns to rage mode, I don't like either option that we have NN was crap and no NN is prob gonna result in a lot of law suits to keep the status qoe, neither option is nice.
In what way was NN crap?

Also redundant fixed line infrastructure is plain stupid. Private companies extort their customers, prevent competition from gaining access and so on. There is a reason why the words "monopoly" and "duopoly" exist - it's because companies in these positions screw their customers because they control the market in those places.

Government in theory is ideally placed to build the infrastructure. Because of the right vs left wing philosophical differences, the left traditionally thought "yes the government should build the utility infrastructure" while the right thinks "the government can't do anything efficiently".

In Australia, the privatisation of our fixed line telecommunications network was an unmitigated disaster. The privatised company held consumers hostage with price gouging, obstructing access to competitors, failing to upgrade the internet services for over a decade. They upgraded their network to ADSL2+ and then withheld the upgraded services until a competitor build in any particular region then enabled their service upgrade there. They were called out on it.

So the reason I hate private fixed line with a passion is they (and the right wing politicians in our country) have set Australia back 15-20 years in competitiveness with the rest of the developed world. Our network is currently being "upgraded" to VDSL2 tech. Absolutely moronic. And taxpayer funded too.

If you pay the better part of $100 billion you expect value for money. I expect a network that has some future proofing.

Telstra should have been rolling out fibre a decade ago.
 
Last edited:

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
Like anyone in the hard-core NRA even knows what the Internet is...
I'd be willing to bet ,the hardcore in the NRA,are much like the Hardcore in the Hells Angels , Lawyers ,Company execs, Politicians . that image you view is old..
they Know what the internet is and how to use it..
 

GeforcerFX

TS Evangelist
In what way was NN crap?

Also redundant fixed line infrastructure is plain stupid. Private companies extort their customers, prevent competition from gaining access and so on. There is a reason why the words "monopoly" and "duopoly" exist - it's because companies in these positions screw their customers because they control the market in those places.

Government in theory is ideally placed to build the infrastructure. Because of the right vs left wing philosophical differences, the left traditionally thought "yes the government should build the utility infrastructure" while the right thinks "the government can't do anything efficiently".

In Australia, the privatisation of our fixed line telecommunications network was an unmitigated disaster. The privatised company held consumers hostage with price gouging, obstructing access to competitors, failing to upgrade the internet services for over a decade. They upgraded their network to ADSL2+ and then withheld the upgraded services until a competitor build in any particular region then enabled their service upgrade there. They were called out on it.

So the reason I hate private fixed line with a passion is they (and the right wing politicians in our country) have set Australia back 15-20 years in competitiveness with the rest of the developed world. Our network is currently being "upgraded" to VDSL2 tech. Absolutely moronic. And taxpayer funded too.

If you pay the better part of $100 billion you expect value for money. I expect a network that has some future proofing.

Telstra should have been rolling out fibre a decade ago.
In the US NN basically allowed the big 4 to stay in complete control of the markets, just limited how they could conduct themselves, in some areas it stalled small providers from entering the market. It limited the monopolies but didn't come close to solving the underlying problem of lack of competition and certain companies having monopolies on markets. Our government was designed to be slow and inefficient to allow the people to watchdog what they were doing. They struggle with the tasks they have expanded themselves into in the 20th century. For them to take on important things would require a restructuring of how they even run, and would move to much power out of congress.
Australia, like the USA will always be behind other countries due to our size, massive countries, regardless of there development level have terrible internet. The only government involvement I would back is for them to forceably split the companies and force the remains to fight in the same areas for business.