FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a “Solution That Won’t Work to a Problem That Doesn’t Exist”
Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin | February 25, 2015
Net Neutrality is “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist,” says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Pai is an oustpoken opponent of expanding government control of the internet, including FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under the same Title II rules that are used to govern telephone-service providers as public utilities. Under current FCC regulations, ISPs are considered providers of “information services” and subject to essentially no federal regulation.
He is also sharply critical of President Barack Obama’s very public push to influence policy at the FCC, which is technically an independent agency. Last year, it was widely believed that Wheeler, a former head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, would not push for Title II. Pai calls the president’s actions—which included “creating a YouTube video of with very specific prescriptions as to what this agency should do”—unprecedented in his experience. Coupled with the fact that “the agency suddenly chang[ed]course from where it was to mimic the president’s plan,” says Pai, “suggests that the independence of the agency has been compromised to some extent.”
https://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/
It’s showtime at the FCC! Will the administration’s minions, being a three-out-of-five majority on the Commission, do its bidding and begin taking down the electronic communications edifice that US freedom built?
You’re darn skippy they will.
And only then will the American people be apprised of the details of their regulatory plan.
You who support anyone who condemns and opposes constitutional conservatives–do you not know that the unfettered powers you are allowing to flow into the hands of your currently favored tyrant could very well be wielded one day soon by someone currently “on the other side of the aisle”? Sure, you might be banking on permanent, transformational change occurring between now and the next national election, thereby rendering non-progressives ineligible for the office of President of the United States, but are you certain this will prevent a political opponent from slipping in under the electoral radar, seizing the reins of executive power, and exacting an equal or greater measure of political revenge than the depredation currently being visited on him and his colleagues?
Does not madness this way lie?