The FCC Is Full Again, With Three Republicans and Two Democrats (arstechnica.com) 81
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. Senate today confirmed the nominations of Republican Brendan Carr and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel to fill the two empty seats on the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai congratulated the commissioners in a statement. "As I know from working with each of them for years, they have distinguished records of public service and will be valuable assets to the FCC in the years to come," Pai said. "Their experience at the FCC makes them particularly well-suited to hit the ground running. I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations."
Carr served as Pai's Wireless, Public Safety and International Legal Advisor for three years. After President Trump elevated Pai to the chairmanship in January, Pai appointed Carr to become the FCC's general counsel. Rosenworcel had to leave the commission at the end of last year when the Republican-led US Senate refused to re-confirm her for a second five-year term. But Democrats pushed Trump to re-nominate Rosenworcel to fill the empty Democratic spot and he obliged. FCC commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. esides Pai, Carr, and Rosenworcel, the five-member commission includes Republican Michael O'Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.
Carr served as Pai's Wireless, Public Safety and International Legal Advisor for three years. After President Trump elevated Pai to the chairmanship in January, Pai appointed Carr to become the FCC's general counsel. Rosenworcel had to leave the commission at the end of last year when the Republican-led US Senate refused to re-confirm her for a second five-year term. But Democrats pushed Trump to re-nominate Rosenworcel to fill the empty Democratic spot and he obliged. FCC commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. esides Pai, Carr, and Rosenworcel, the five-member commission includes Republican Michael O'Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.
He does not mean it actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Pai said .. protect consumers, ..
But in his mind, FCC's customers to serve are corporations.
Re:He does not mean it actually (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, you know, nothing gained for Comcast if every indie filmaker can deliver for the same prices as Comcast.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.
You seem to have a strong opinion on "net neutrality" without knowing what it was.
In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.
In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.
As a rule of thum
Re: (Score:2)
The great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm? I take it you can't do dates, or you would be aware the last of the Nubian kingdoms was circa 1860 bce, WELL BEFORE the dating on your "nature.com" post
Stupid really does spread on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What race(s) ancient Egyptians were has no impact on how we should treat people today. It's interesting historical information, certainly, but anyone trying
Re: (Score:2)
Loser
Re: (Score:2)
The great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)
It's a much better look to admit that you mis-typed in the first place than to keep lying about what you said, when anyone can clearly see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who were the great emperors of the 18th Dynasty?
Hint: Think Moses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He does not mean it actually (Score:5, Interesting)
No, that's not the idea at all. The idea is to ensure that ISPs wouldn't interfere or impede packets based on who was sending or receiving them.
If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.
Re:He does not mean it actually (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.
Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality [slashdot.org]
Here's one [slashdot.org] showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).
The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.
That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.
What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.
That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.
They've already tried to do this with Netflix [wirefly.com] and Vonage [slashdot.org], to name a couple.
Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.
What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/comcast-blocks-some-internet-traffic/ [nbcnews.com]
https://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-fiber-netflix/ [wired.com]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346 [wsj.com]
https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon [theverge.com]
How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC [commondreams.org] with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?
Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Comcast#Net_neutrality [wikipedia.org]
Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs [publicintegrity.org].
Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.
Re: (Score:3)
If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.
This is false.
If that were true, it seems easy to prove. What small ISPs are against Net Neutrality? Because most of them really seem to want it. It's mostly huge ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc) who are against Net Neutrality.
Which makes sense. Small ISPs cannot leverage their power to extort money from Netflix, Youtube, and other (media) competitors. So NN is not a big burden to them. Large ISPs can and do, so NN will make them less money. As always, follow the money.
When big ISPs extort money from media competitors
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Comcast, Spectrum, etc want it. Those guys are "Big Telco."
What is "it" in this context?
Google wants NN. It does not count as "Big Telco" in any way shape or form. Fi and Fiber are tiny, and Google Voice is not big either (and not useful without an actual Telco).
Comcast and Spectrum are "Big Cable", but the difference between Big Cable and Big Telco is rather academic now since both offer the same services. And they don't want NN.
So I have no idea what "it" you have in mind that Google and Comcast both want? Money? Customers? But not NN and not "charge for th
Re: (Score:2)
That definition is utterly wrong and would be a terrible concept if anyone attempted to implement it. The intent of net neutrality was never to prevent companies from charging different amounts of money for users that use different types of services, because different types of services have different needs. If someone uses a type of service that uses a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Full of ? (Score:1)
Last I heard about their statements regarding the alleged DDOS attack, they were already full of something one way or the other...
Trust issues (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations" he said, while the holy cross on the wall burst into flames.
Re:Trust issues (Score:4, Funny)
He IS looking to protect consumers from the evils of watching too much porn. If we're allowed to download more than a gigabyte of data a month, it will just be unrealistic porn which will warp our sexuality.
He IS hoping to improving the agencies operations. There will be more people to collect bribes. Plus, what if Pai is on vacation when comcast calls and says they want this or that regulation eliminated? This way someone will be there to answer the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Or didn't vote, or kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results...
Evil kidding-myself Johnson voter weighing in. Our prescription for monopoly in any area, whether it be pharma or Internet service, is to let in competition. This includes letting communities decide for themselves to form a cable-laying district.
Re: (Score:2)
"That left me with voting for a Tolkienesque troll, wondering what's an aleppo, can you eats it?"
Actually this improved my opinion of Johnson. Now that we are on the cusp of energy independence, we have no business fiddling with the Middle East. Seal it off and forget about it while it solves its own problems. Don't sell it any more weapons, don't import any more of its oil, and most especially don't import any more of its "refugees."
We're nerds. Our short-term priority should be burning our own oil and gas
Re: (Score:2)
Pipeline transportation of freight has been discussed for many more years than Hyperloop has been on the table. If all else fails, we will probably still end up with containers being shot through pipes.
If completion worked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A powerful company can huff and puff all it wants, but it can't enforce a monopoly unless it get laws passed that forbid others from competing. That's why our pharma prices stay far above world market and why you can't escape crappy domestic airline service by taking Etihad.
Re: (Score:2)
I voted third-party since I couldn't stomach either of the candidates, but Clinton actually took my state. So it didn't make much difference.
Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results. I didn't like Hillary either but the alternative was obviously worse.
To paraphrase a famous quote: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil.
Many people who voted third party this election, myself included, were hoping that 2016 would finally loosen the grips that the Republican/Democrat divide has on the political system. instead it seems to have only strengthened it.
Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
We really need all the minor parties to join a coalition that strictly advocates for getting rid of FPTP voting and nothing else. Trying to break up the duopoly by chipping away piecemeal isn't going to work. We need to start there if there is going to be any real change.
Re: (Score:2)
Or didn't vote, or kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results. I didn't like Hillary either but the alternative was obviously worse.
LOL. Trump wasn't my first choice, but he's hands down a better choice than Hillary "Keep towing the same policies" & "I cannot run a successful campaign, even as a shoe in" Clinton. Personally, I voted for the lessor of two evils in the general.
We can argue the details all day, but I'm guessing that your objection to Trump is more partisan than it is about policy. Truly Trump is more centrist than his republican rivals and down right progressive in the social issues of the day and you'd know that if y
Re: (Score:2)
, but he's hands down a better choice than Hillary
Stop deluding yourself. More of the same was "bad". Trump is "worse".
Im guessing that your objection to Trump is more partisan than it is about policy.
Nope. I can't object to his policy because he doesn't have any. I have no objection to him based on partisan grounds... i don't even think he IS a republican. My objection to Trump is that he is incompetent, petty, easily distracted, easily triggered, extremely narcissist, incapable of humility or honesty, incapable of performing his duties, unethical, and corrupt.
I would take McCain over Trump. I would take Romney over Trump. They'd each
Re: (Score:2)
He won, Hillary lost, you need to learn to live with that. I lived though 8 years of Obummer without complaining about his "qualifications" though I did oppose his policies and bald face lying. Your laundry list of complaints are pointless.
The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.
You
Re: (Score:2)
The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.
You want me to admit he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements? Sure. You want a trophy?
That doesn't make him qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... You just don't like him and are looking for data to confirm why you are right. It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. You obviously disagree with nearly HALF of voters out there so I'd not get up on that high horse so readily if I were you. Lots of people disagree with you...
I'll offer the following advice. If you are trying to convince folks that Trump is not a good president, I would recommend that you focus on accomplishments (or lack there of) and actual actions
Re: (Score:2)
"You just don't like him"
LOL... I don't think I could like any politician less than Dick Cheney; or disagree with any politician more -- but I still recognize and respect Cheney's intelligence, competence, and effectiveness.
"It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. "
BWAHAHAHAHA. Nope.
Dick Cheney - don't like, hated his policies, highly respect him as a policitian
John McCain - like him as a person, disagree with a lot of his policy, highly respect him as a politician
Lyndsey Graham
Re: (Score:2)
Have it your way. I'm not trying to talk you out of your bias.
Trump is president at least until January of 2021 and by the looks of things in the democrat party right now is likely to be president until 2025 unless they come up with a viable candidate which isn't looking too likely for 2020. The leading contender is Hillary, who's lost the presidency twice now (once to the likes of Trump) and I don't think she'd make the primary and everybody else losses the general to Trump hands down. Things could chang
I Wonder (Score:1)
Josh Lyman learned this lesson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My state votes 2:1 in favor of the Republican candidate, regardless of who he is. My vote does not matter. I could have voted third party. Johnson and Stein were both unqualified candidates, though slightly better than the rest of the field. Johnson was apparently so ignorant of world events that he didn't know what Aleppo was--how could that guy run foreign policy? Stein, a medical doctor, mired herself in the anti-vax controversy by hedging on the issue--what other facts would she demur on?
Should I have v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely spot-on.
People must come to once again understand that there exists an "inverse-square law" of government; That every increase in power, size, and scope of government results in creating a reduction in freedom, liberty, and wealth of the population at roughly the squared amount/importance/size of the increase in government.
Power is a zero-sum game. The people start out with 100% bu
The FCC is full of something, all right (Score:2)
And under the leadership of Ajit Pai, that something is shit.
Blind hatred of of regulations (Score:2)
What is going on? (Score:2)
First it was a 90+ senate vote in favour of the nominee for FBI Director, now it's an easy ride for FCC nominees. I thought it was public policy not to approve anyone Trump nominates unless it's after a huge drama complete with a portrait of the evil the nominee must be for the crime of being nominated by Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
what about tech info and databases? (Score:2)
On the right track (Score:2)
The FCC Is Full Again, With Three Republicans and Two Democrats...
If the FCC keeps eating politicians, our problems will be solved!