FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: a monumental shift toward government control of internet

[enzo1]

Comm. Pai's Stmt on President Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet | FCC.gov



FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has issued the following statement, verbatim:
STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

Last night, Chairman Wheeler provided his fellow Commissioners with President Obama’s 332- page plan to regulate the Internet. I am disappointed that the plan will not be released publicly. The FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself and post the entire document on its website. Instead, it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it.

In the coming days, I look forward to continuing to study the plan i detail. Based on my initial examination, however, several points are apparent.


FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

Source: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

Ajit Pai was nominated to the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama and on May 7, 2012 was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate. On May 14, 2012, he was sworn in for a term that concludes on June 30, 2016.

[widgeon13]

WTF happened to transparency?

[legion]

When the media covers for you, you can be as opaque as you like and still call yourself transparent.

Like healthcare and guns, the liberal agenda here is about control of the masses.

[sc_rufctr]

This "reads" really BAD.

So why are they doing this? To stop terrorists posting their videos?

[widgeon13]

It's too cheap for them now. They want it to generate more cash so it can be taxed more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JD159]

Good little read.

Republican FCC Member Warns Net Neutrality Is Not Neutral - Breitbart

[wdfifteen]

Ajit Pai is a republican member of the FCC with a political axe to grind.
The statement "... it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it" is an interesting and a somewhat misleading one, in that it overstates the importance of the president's proposals. The FCC make the rules, so they don't have to pass any of the president's plan at all. I agree it would be interesting to see what the president proposed, but without seeing it this analysis by a partisan politician is meaningless.

[Rikao4]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Ajit Pai is a republican member of the FCC with a political axe to grind.
The statement "... it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it" is an interesting and a somewhat misleading one, in that it overstates the importance of the president's proposals. The FCC make the rules, so they don't have to pass any of the president's plan at all. I agree it would be interesting to see what the president proposed, but without seeing it this analysis by a partisan politician is meaningless.

well why don't they put the plan out for all to see...
or find some twit to hawk it's benefits..

guess we wait for the old..
well we forgot to mention that tax's or that rule..

Rika

[spuggy]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

WTF happened to transparency?

WTF happened to threads with a blatantly political agenda/slant being restricted to PARF?

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by spuggy

WTF happened to threads with a blatantly political agenda/slant being restricted to PARF?

For one thing, controlling the interewebs goes far beyond political partisanship and/or 'agendas'. The intrewebs represents a monumental power shift from global corporatism to a heretofore unimaginable voice to the people. As such, in the eyes of governments, it must be stopped. If it can't be stopped it must be managed, taxed and regulated.

This issue goes far beyond any 'blatant political agenda/slant". All persons whatever his political affilitation should be alarmed at this, including you.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Ajit Pai is a republican member of the FCC with a political axe to grind.
The statement "... it looks like the FCC will have to pass the President’s plan before the American people will be able to find out what’s really in it" is an interesting and a somewhat misleading one, in that it overstates the importance of the president's proposals. The FCC make the rules, so they don't have to pass any of the president's plan at all. I agree it would be interesting to see what the president proposed, but without seeing it this analysis by a partisan politician is meaningless.

First it is only meaningless if it does not result in a conversation which makes more (or maybe all) of the proposal public. Second, if it is appropriate to dismiss the analysis because it comes from a partisan politician, would it be appropriate to use the same rationale to dismiss the plan itself?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

For one thing, controlling the interewebs goes far beyond political partisanship and/or 'agendas'. The intrewebs represents a monumental power shift from global corporatism to a heretofore unimaginable voice to the people. As such, in the eyes of governments, it must be stopped. If it can't be stopped it must be managed, taxed and regulated.

This issue goes far beyond any 'blatant political agenda/slant". All persons whatever his political affilitation should be alarmed at this, including you.

It's Time Warner and Comcast who want to be free to throttle your internet access. I agree the internet is a heretofore unimaginable voice to the people, it is so powerful that the powers that be are going to control it whether we like it or not. The question now is whether it is going to be controlled by Time Warner and Comcast or our government. You seem to feel comfortable in the loving arms of our corporations. I don't like either choice, but since I have to choose, I choose government.

[widgeon13]

I'll take TW any day.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

First it is only meaningless if it does not result in a conversation which makes more (or maybe all) of the proposal public. Second, if it is appropriate to dismiss the analysis because it comes from a partisan politician, would it be appropriate to use the same rationale to dismiss the plan itself?

What's Pai's plan? For a guy in the FCC who actually has some power, he has been curiously silent about any plan he might have. I'm all for transparency. I would like to see everyone's plan. Where's Pai's transparency?

[sammyg2]

Some gubmints are based on personal freedom, IOW the INDIVIDUAL is the main component.
The individual's personal rights take precident.
That's how OUR gubmint was designed to be, and what it was like for a really long time.

Some gubmints are based on the rights of the state, the collective.
Individual rights are secondary and are often superceded by the rights and needs of the many, of the state, of the gubmint.
that is called
COMMUNISM and is what Obama is all about.
Take away personal freedoms and rights, and replace them with the gubmint's rights and needs.

This net neutrality power grab is simply a communistic attempt to take away personal freedoms and give them to the gubmint.

And those who are not smart enough to win a "participant" ribbon at the local olympics gladly follow him and give up their rights and say "whatever you want obama, as long as you promise us some cheeeze".

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

What's Pai's plan? For a guy in the FCC who actually has some power, he has been curiously silent about any plan he might have. I'm all for transparency. I would like to see everyone's plan. Where's Pai's transparency?

Wait, didn't you just dismiss his input as meaningless?

[Rikao4]

has power..
lol..
he has a vote..
and the deck is already stacked...
so if this thing is so sweet & good for us..
publish it...
as for choosing Dish, Comcast and others..
it's a choice I have..
with Gov. ..I just pay & pay and then pay more..

Rika

[atcjorg]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

I'll take TW any day.

then you have never dealt with them if they had their way you would have 1000 dollar a month basic internet and cable. These defacto monopolies have the worst customer service because they don't care, we could have much better internet ( Internet in South Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Yeah I trust TW and comcast to look after my interest just like Enron, they are all about separating us from as much hard earned as they can squeeze.

[legion]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

It's Time Warner and Comcast who want to be free to throttle your internet access. I agree the internet is a heretofore unimaginable voice to the people, it is so powerful that the powers that be are going to control it whether we like it or not. The question now is whether it is going to be controlled by Time Warner and Comcast or our government. You seem to feel comfortable in the loving arms of our corporations. I don't like either choice, but since I have to choose, I choose government.

The solution is to break them up and allow their pieces to compete, not allow them to merge and collude with a corrupt government to control what information we are allowed to see.

[Rikao4]

as is our Government...
I can walk away from Corp's..
the other..
wants more control over me & what I do...

Rika