Hacker News Reader

Comment by ordinaryperson | Hacker News Reader

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 2018 and 2020, whether that's registering voters or forming groups to get lazy liberals or independents to vote to send better people to Washington.

One side aspect that I think hasn't been covered: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer and probably plans to parley his government experience into a lucrative gig at one of the big telcos once the Republicans are inevitably thrown out of office, so he stands to personally profit from this decision.

As Donald Trump would say, SAD.

View on HN

> 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.

This shouldn't be downvoted. We don't need to make up things about people to attack terrible policy and unethical behavior.

People downvote things that disagree with their biases. I thought Hacker News was better than this though.

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.

I'm curious, where would you expect someone with years of experience in a specific industry to go after public office? Besides public office, of course.

A company that didn't benefit from his appointment. Is that crazy to expect? Is it really that hard to find?

Not into the arms of a large company they were regulating. It means they have a massive conflict of interests.

Yeah, it's the obvious choice for him, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't set up perverse incentives.

If I wrote regulations that benefitted Google, I would hope I’d go work at Qualcomm or somewhere unrelated. It gives the appearance of quid pro quo.

If I started selling a product that may have benefited a future employer, should I not work for that employer in the future? Not saying these are at all equivalent situations given the amount of power Pai but curious all the same.

It’s relevant regardless of tenure or history because all indications are that he votes for Verizon’s interests, not the public’s.

Most commissioners for all sorts of branches/govmt arms come from the private sector...But-but Verizon!!!

ugh. No one ever bothers to bring up this document either, which isnt going away... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

It absolutely is going away. The courts ruled that those stipulations aren't enforceable unless ISPs are Title II common carriers.

As far as things you can do, I'd add doing whatever you can to push local broadband, if it is feasible wherever you are. If your local government is trying, push for it! If you have state laws that forbid local governments from serving their constituents, push to repeal those.

The telecoms have many sophisticated strategies they pursue; one is alternating between "states rights" and FCC-friendly arguments to create a ratchet locking out competitors. If you break one side of the ratchet, at least some folks can have first-world bandwidth.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer and probably plans to parley his government experience into a lucrative gig at one of the big telcos

I don’t care if he was a professional kitten killer, it has little relevance to actions currently being taken. I say this for two reasons: Pai has spent more time in public service than he did at Verizon, by multiples. And second, who cares what his motivation is? Does that amplify or mitigate the circumstances in some way? No? Then it’s just a distraction from the issue at hand, which is bad enough that we best not derail the conversation worrying about where someone worked twenty years ago.

> And second, who cares what his motivation is?

Knowing his motivations (is he simply misinformed? is he corrupt? does he believe in strict libertarianism?) has a big impact in shaping a winning strategy to oppose him.

What are some examples of possible strategies specific to him at this point in the timeline?

Eh, I’m having a hard time mentally walking through how this would work. Because it would seem to me that his mind is going to be made up at this point, and we need to persuade those that think he’s right (and maybe “he’s a shill” can do that, dunno).

But that doesn’t mean I can’t upvote a reasonable POV with which I just happen to disagree.

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.

I remember hearing that the no-lobbying executive order was loopholed pretty badly. Does it actually apply here?

Depends how cynical you are. He could technically lobby 'other parts' of the government according to this article but it does not specify, only reiterates you can't lobby your former agency for 5 years.

Serving 5 years in a government position when you could be an exec at a Telecom company is a gigantic opportunity cost so the point here is that he's not getting paid off, unless fraudulently, which can't be completely ruled out.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-we...

You don't have to be that cynical, they waive the requirements whenever they feel like it. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-trump-administrat...

Would the FTC count as "other parts of the government"?

I seem to recall one of the arguments of Pai is that the FCC shouldn't be responsible for regulation of the internet, it should fall under the FTC.

So as head of the FCC he can effectively strip it of all power, the governance shifting to the FTC. Once his commission is up he takes a job at Verizon/At&T/etc, lobbying the FTC.

Or, as burkaman noted, they will just issue a waiver.

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?

There's nothing inherently wrong with working at a telco after his tenure. What's wrong is he is making decisions at the expense of the American people to secure that position.

Because accepting a job at a firm immediately after shifting government rules in its favour is corruption. Its absurd to claim that the government work was impartial when so many regulators end up taking advantage of the revolving door between government and industry.

Ok, so you lose your job due to your commission expiring, or you get replaced by a new administration.

but you cant be a lobbyist

so what do you work for? other goverment jobs, or back to the private sector.

what if we had a google exec become some internet government position, then went back to google? would there be this public outcry?

Of course there would be a public outcry if during his government appointment he worked to weaken or dismiss regulation that impacts Google directly. It’s the textbook definition of conflict of interest.

It's only corruption if there is some sort of quid pro quo.

If I were telecom lawyer, I'd rather Title II to be honest. Creates more work.

Now you're confusing me.

And how many waivers were given out for that? I'm sorry, but nothing in this administration has given me any reason to believe this will actually be followed up on.

He'll probably just issue waivers for that, similar to the ones he issued earlier this year to allow lobbyists and corporate lawyers to work in his Administration. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/336195-two-...

> The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is reportedly set to release copies of roughly two dozen ethics waivers for federal officials next week, showing which officials are focusing on issues that they worked on in their private sector jobs.

> The waivers are in addition to the ones the Trump administration released this week, The Wall Street Journal reports. The White House released those ethics pledge waivers Wednesday, exempting at least a dozen White House officials.

Not to defend trump but it's congress that is corrupt to the core. The cable companies have been trying this many times before and congress is on their side. At this point it's just a matter of time.

We need to get the corruption out of congress.

More like we need to limit the influence that money and lobbyists can have on elected officials. Changing seats in Congress will just put new people in place who will more than likely do the same thing.

The first step is repealing Citizens United v FEC, which won't be easy with Trump poised to make at least one more Supreme Court pick.

> At this point the best thing people can do is prepare to vote in 2018 and 2020, whether that's registering voters or forming groups to get lazy liberals or independents to vote to send better people to Washington.

My biggest fear in our current situation is the threat of voter suppression and election fraud. Any suggestions on shining a light on these issues, and combating them?

> The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it.

If Ajit Pai continues to obstruct investigations, I would consider it obstruction of justice. That's something that an Attorney General should seriously consider in the current light.

A state AG has no authority to investigate a federal official for his official actions. The federal government is the superior sovereign and has the sole power to police itself. This is nothing but political grandstanding by Schneidermann.

It's not obstruction because of federal supremacy; given the normal level of voluntary cooperation, it's bizarre that there is no cooperation, and suggests that the fraud is not just an outside fraud on the FCC but a fraud by the FCC (whether originally or merely one convenient to and retrospectively ratified by the agency.) But there is little a state AG can do in that case except publicize the issue.

Well, relating to the identity misappropriation itself. Should there be litigation over the final regulation (as is near certain) and should the content of public comment and the FCC’s handling of it be an issue (as is also near certain), then things become a lot more interesting.

> If Ajit Pai continues to obstruct investigations, I would consider it obstruction of justice. That's something that an Attorney General should seriously consider in the current light.

My recurring thought as I read the fine article: "you're an attorney general, a lawyer who has asked politely, multiple times and been ignored; why TF haven't you filed for a subpoena yet?"

Regulations are not the answer, for the very reason that they will flip-flop with political appointees, and it amounts to people begging for what they rightly should demand.

The inconsistency in this position is prioritizing killing off net neutrality regulations while the thicket of regulations which cement the ISP oligopoly remain in place to be dispensed with probably never.

Oligopoly? Most people seem to be served by a monopoly.

My HOA requires me to use TWC, or get a fine which can lead to a lien. TWC doesn’t even exist in my part of Texas: it’s spectrum or ATT.

Spectrum is the result of a merger that subsumed TWC, for what it's worth. Your HOA just needs to update its paperwork. I'm sure a judge would see things your way if someone actually pursued you for failing to use a company that doesn't exist anymore.

You realize that all utility networks are regulated and have been since the advent of electrification and telegraphs? There's no neutral here, it's a fundamentally regulated industry. Exactly what solution would you offer that isn't in the form of regulation?

> The sad reality is there's not much we, Eric Schneidermann or anyone else can do about it.

If the FCC is cooperating with criminals to cover up fraud, can they be RICO'd?

There should be some effort to get more moderate Republicans involved. There are plenty of Republicans who support net neutrality, but do not consider that as important an issue as other issues on which Republicans and Democrats differ, such as immigration, taxes, gun rights, abortion, and many others.

I think that most of the less moderate Republican voters who oppose net neutrality mostly do so because their representatives and party officials tell them to. It's not like, say, their opposition to abortion which they came to on their own and then used that to help choose their party.

If that is true, it should be possible to move the GOP to a place where net neutrality is something that a Republican candidate can either support or oppose and still have a chance of winning a GOP primary or caucus.

Best thing to do is probably to contact your representatives and senators in order to get Congress to act on net neutrality.

Congress could still take action to keep this from happening. It's a long shot, but the folks in Congress still don't really want to be tossed out next time they're up. They're hoping people will not notice this is happening or will not realize its effect until much later, and on not being blamed for it by the folks that do notice and care. We should all be making it clear that not only do we know and care about this, we also don't buy that Congress is powerless.

You know, if this was true, half of congress wouldn't be there. You forget about gerrymandering and establishment party politics keeping people who are amiable to telecoms in power.

You're rather convinced Trump belongs to big telecom...i'd suggest more skepticism and waiting and seeing.

Trump belongs to the wind.

How is "waiting and seeing" more reasonable than "assuming the worst" at this point?

Most commissioners for all sorts of branches/govmt arms come from the private sector...

However, being from Verizon is noticeable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com