Click The Pic
Posted on 01/23/2017 7:56:27 AM PST by Enlightened1
resident Trump has settled on Republican Ajit Pai as his choice for chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, sources told The Hill Friday.
The move was widely expected and certain to be welcomed by Republican lawmakers.
Look for Pai to hit the ground running as soon as the pick is made official.
Pai is currently a commissioner on the FCC board and an outspoken critic of many of the regulations pushed by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, who stepped down Friday.
Most notably, he has been a fierce opponent of the net neutrality rules enshrined in the FCC's Open Internet Order, and all signs point to Republicans gearing up to roll back elements of the regulation.
Pai has had good relations with congressional Republicans and he will be closely watched as he works with House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and his Senate counterpart, Chairman John Thune, (R-S.D.) to undo the many tech and telecom regulations passed under the Obama administration.
But some believe that Pai could also be at odds with the Trump administration on some issues.
Pai is generally lauded by the industry for his anti-regulatory stance, leading many to believe that he will look favorably at the proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger if it comes under FCC scrutiny.
But Trump himself came out hard against the $85 billion deal during the campaign. Though, in recent days he's suggested he is still deciding his stance, telling Axios in an interview that "I haven't seen any of the facts." That remark came just one day after he met with Pai at Trump Tower and less than a week after AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson paid Trump a visit.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yes!!!!
Fk neutrality....
Scam...
That's PRESIDENT TRUMP - get it right!
Bigger win than most people realized
I for, one, think this is a good thing and its a credit to Trump that he has nominated several cabinet members and other officials who don't see eye to eye with him on everything. The last thing you want in government is a bunch of yes men. Obama had that. Trump is confident enough in himself that he doesn't need it.
Can we get the internet back or is it too late since Obama gave it away
More winning !
It is highly desirable for the carriers to offer enhanced Quality of Service to both consumers and content providers.
It will change the world again.
I am pro-consumer. Is the current FCC net-neutrality policy anti-consumer? If so, why? Does getting rid of the current net neutrality policy help consumers? If so, why?
bookmark
ESPECIALLY for those tired of paying $200/mo for 600 channels, 599 of which they never watch.
I think that Trump wants to break up media oligopolies, so a merger of ATT/Warner would not be welcomed. He could always use DOJ for anti-trust if FCC doesn’t stop this. Trump won’t do any favors for the big media that he has to fight every day; he should seek at minimum to impose a long delay and “law-fare” penalty on the enemedia. Time warner will shape up as long as the situation is up in the air.
At least the independent media will still have some protection.
I really hope unbundling is an early goal here. Think what it would do to MSNBC, et. al.
If Verizon, Uunet, Sprint (Internet backbone carriers) could charge Netflix and multiple other aggregators of content a 20% premium to respect QoS (quality of service) markings on their packets, and if the ISP’s (AT&T, Comcast etc.) could charge that same 20% to respect QoS, the entire consumer world changes, as well as the industry.
Voice and Video could be delivered across the internet in a quality fashion, without contention from other uses.
Video aggregators will emerge that let you select JUST the channels you want to watch and those would have to be priced competitively as their market will be nationwide.
Tired of paying for Telemundo? Fixed.
The internet would also carry all voice traffic, as it carries it in the backbone now.But it will be how you get phone service at home and in the office and between cell towers.
Such a move would eliminate the traditional telephone network, probably making voice services essentially free. It would also eliminate the death grip cable TV providers have on the subscribers...forcing the purchase of “packages”, instead of just the 2 channels you want. It will eliminate their networks as well.
The efficiencies and economies of scale will drive down prices for everyone on multiple services, and increase choice.
If I understand your argument, absent net neutrality, ISPs would be allowed to charge a premium to certain content providers and theoretically they wo9uld reduce pricing for certain types of consumers/users. In a word and based on their track records, I will never trust an ISP to do the right thing. They are monopolies in my view.
The problem I see is that in too many markets, ISP competition is none existent or prices are fixed between competitors.
Some years back, Pennsylvania passed legislation that allowed consumers to select their 'electricity' suppliers from anywhere in the U.S. That was and it remains one of the best pro-consumer pieces of legislation passed by any state IMHO. The same needs to be done with ISPs, i.e., separate ISP service from ISP infrastructure and allow any ISP to sell its service in any market. This is feasible but it will take state legislatures doing the right thing on behalf of consumers.
So, you would use force of law, or regulation backed by law, to compel an access provider allow any alternative provider to offer for-profit services over the infrastructure they invested $billions in? At a marginal, set return rate?
That’s what socialists do.
I hope he protects the HAM RADIO bands as they are being eyed by commercial interests for their use. The HAM RADIO community provides a place to train new talent for the radio and electronics industries and a resource for communications during emergencies! KF5MAG
Under PA law, electric "supplier" and electric "infrastructure" are two separate bills/expenses. PA electricity customers are free to select their electric "supplier". Suppliers across the nation are free to enter the PA market. The electric company providing infrastructure continues to get paid but only for use of their infrastructure. The infrastructure company is also free to compete as a supplier. I can attest that having a choice to select my electricity "supplier" has been a great benefit. Essentially, the PA law allows for more competition. I believe that most would say this represents free market capitalism as opposed to a single utility holding a monopoly over its customers or region.
Laws that allow more competition are pro-consumer and pro-free-market. What I'm suggesting is that we have ISP laws that would make it possible for more choice - more competition.
Re: http://www.papowerswitch.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.