Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Ajit Pai to Become New Head of the FCC

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday January 21 2017, @01:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the here-we-go dept.

takyon writes:

Several news sites are reporting that Donald Trump is looking to elevate Ajit Pai to head up the FCC:

Ajit Pai, a Republican Federal Communications Commission member and foe of net neutrality regulation, will be named to head the agency, according to a person familiar with the transition.

Pai has often dissented as FCC Democrats voted for tighter regulations, including the 2015 open internet, or net neutrality, decision that forbids internet service providers from unfairly blocking or slowing web traffic. The rule opposed by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. is among those likely to be reversed by president Donald Trump's FCC, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts.

Additional information at Politico and Reuters.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Ajit Pai to Become New Head of the FCC | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 37 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @08:38PM (#457088)

    Here is the US code for federal crimes: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18 [cornell.edu]

    That would be the appropriate analog as the FCC would create fundamental top level rules which states could expand on or adapt as appropriate and on downward to counties/municipalities/etc. Tellingly enough, I suspect if you printed out the entirety of title 18 it would be shorter than the net neutrality rules. The difference between rules meant for enforcement and rules meant for obfuscation.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @10:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @10:25PM (#457124)

    You know why we have judges? To apply human judgment to those laws.

    To decide whether they apply and whether the application is reasonable.

    So now you want judges to decide what network managers can and can't do?

    What you are calling for isn't just unworkable its something nobody with an iota of experience would try to apply to any industry.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @12:21PM (#457315)

      Judges are not involved in interpreting anything in some ridiculously large percent of cases. 99.999% or whatever.

      You're being obtuse.