71–80 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were a betting man, I would absolutely bet that he works in the telecom industry after his stint at the FCC. He might not work as a lobbyist, but there are a lot more jobs than that open for a person with his knowledge and contacts.
Sure, and why shouldn't he?
The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…
Per Trump exec order, he can't lobby for at least 2 years and most likely 5 depending on his tenure. So it's not a profitable move for him, taking this position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were a betting man, I would absolutely bet that he works in the telecom industry after his stint at the FCC. He might not work as a lobbyist, but there are a lot more jobs than that open for a person with his knowledge and contacts.
Sure, and why shouldn't he?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer He worked in their legal department for 2-3 years 15 years ago. All of his other time has been spent has a public servant. People need to stop bringing this up, because it only muddies the actual policy debate.
Let's wait and see where he ends up. If he doesn't immediately go back to telecom after his appointment is over, then I'll agree bringing up his history wasn't warranted.
Are there any legitimate arguments for anti-net neutrality proponents? Or is it just more "republicans prefer less regulations"?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-po...
He claims that 80% of smaller ISPs have said that they delayed investment in infrastructure due to the costs associated with the net neutrality regs, and also that there was a reduction in overall broadband investment in the last two years and that has never happened before, outside of a recession. He thinks that this has hurt efforts to bring connectivity to rural and underserved areas.
Personally, I think the argument for net neutrality is strong in the present situation where we have less competition, but he believes that the FTC governance previous to title 2 puting ISPs under the purview of th FCC was already protecting consumers adequately. The new proposal also enforces a transparency requirement on any traffic shaping, or filtering.
Are there any legitimate arguments for anti-net neutrality proponents? Or is it just more "republicans prefer less regulations"?
I'm not sure I buy that as I think it under-estimates the barrier to entry.
Are there any legitimate arguments for anti-net neutrality proponents? Or is it just more "republicans prefer less regulations"?
http://wethefifth.com/ https://play.radiopublic.com/the-fifth-column-analysis-comme...
I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that the big ISP's use the legal system to essentially drive up entrance costs for smaller players. Would the EFF be able to help with something like that?
The only real long term solution to stuff like this is more competition, because without it you never have the option to "vote with your wallet."
The revocation of the Net Neutrality rules became a foregone conclusion once Donald Trump was elected. The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it. There are 5 FCC commissioners but only 3 may be of the same party. Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr and Michael O'Rielly are locks to vote in favor, so it will pass, 3-2. At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(not) surprisingly, republicans have all but disappeared from that chat. at the federal level, both parties only care about state rights when it suits them.
Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs On healthcare policy in particular the state specific policies continue to be enforced by the GOP. These aren’t positions I agree with btw I’m just pointing out recent examples. I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion acc…
Nope, they aren't. They are all areas where the GOP has pushed at both the federal and state level in the same direction, caring about policy (excluding transgendered persons from general society, blocking abortion, and protecting individual firearms rights) not the relative balance of state/federal power.
* Republicans vigorously oppose gun control and the state level, even suing state governments in federal court to overturn regulations.
* Republicans fight for LGBT discrimination in law and regulation at all levels, not for freedom of states to set inclusive or exclusive policies.
* And, abortion, well:
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353...