FCC Boss Ajit Pai Will Soon Lose Top Spot (vice.com) 204
An anonymous reader shares a report: His trademark grin. The giant, oversized coffee mug. The time he ignored the public, killed net neutrality at the request of telecom lobbyists, then gleefully danced with a pizzagater thinking it made him look good. But with a Joe Biden win, Pai's controversial tenure as head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon be coming to an end. Traditionally, the party in control of the Presidency enjoys a 3-2 majority over the FCC and the top chairman spot. With a Biden win, the FCC majority reverts to Democratic control next January. As such, Pai will lose his top spot at the FCC, and experts say he's likely to leave the agency altogether. Pai's tenure was a minefield of controversy. In no small part due to Pai's repeal of net neutrality, which not only eliminated rules preventing ISPs from behaving anti-competitively, but much of the FCC's authority to police widely-disliked telecom monopolies at all. Instead, that responsibility fell to the FTC, an agency experts say lacks the authority or resources to hold telecom giants accountable (the entire point of the telecom industry gambit).
Pai repeatedly and falsely claimed that net neutrality had stifled sector innovation, job growth, and U.S. broadband investment. He then repeatedly claimed that repealing the rules would drive a massive investment in new broadband networks. But earnings reports, independent research and CEO statements alike made it clear that never actually happened. [...] With a 3-2 majority the Biden FCC is widely expected to restore both net neutrality and the FCC's authority to hold giant ISPs accountable. A Biden FCC is also likely to reverse Pai's repeated attacks on media consolidation rules that have slowly allowed giants like Sinclair Broadcasting to dominate the local news ecosystem to the detriment of local journalism. A Biden FCC is also expected to reverse many of Pai's attacks on programs designed to bring broadband to low-income households, and to take a far more active role in protecting consumers from problematic monopoly behavior during the Covid crisis.
Pai repeatedly and falsely claimed that net neutrality had stifled sector innovation, job growth, and U.S. broadband investment. He then repeatedly claimed that repealing the rules would drive a massive investment in new broadband networks. But earnings reports, independent research and CEO statements alike made it clear that never actually happened. [...] With a 3-2 majority the Biden FCC is widely expected to restore both net neutrality and the FCC's authority to hold giant ISPs accountable. A Biden FCC is also likely to reverse Pai's repeated attacks on media consolidation rules that have slowly allowed giants like Sinclair Broadcasting to dominate the local news ecosystem to the detriment of local journalism. A Biden FCC is also expected to reverse many of Pai's attacks on programs designed to bring broadband to low-income households, and to take a far more active role in protecting consumers from problematic monopoly behavior during the Covid crisis.
Awww Gee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been like that long before he was even employed by the FCC.
Re:Awww Gee (Score:4, Interesting)
It was, however it makes things much worse when the head of the FCC supports it.
While to us, it is like nothing is happening, because all the stations are owned by the same company. The difference is the company will need to be sure that they can justify that case, make sure they provide diversity of opinion and wide range of services. Or if the FCC supports them, then they can see how far they can go to save a buck and maximize profits. Getting a right wing commentator is cheaper than hiring news staff, to cover local news, no problem. Sharing the the rights to the same music, and time all your commercials to be at the exact same time saves money and avoids people from changing that dial.
Re:Awww Gee (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes a *critical difference* when the head of the FCC supports it.
Every radio license in the states of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas will come up for renewal in Pai's successor's term, and as long as corporate, remote, centralized, and automated content is deemed, as an implicit matter of policy by the FCC, to be "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity," these licenses will all be renewed. The FCC, though, has incredibly broad authority to determine what's in the public interest, and could absolutely determine in its process that such features as local ownership, live human-run locally-originating broadcast, non-transferability of licenses, and the like serve that interest.
iHeart Radio "saving a buck" and "maximizing profits" is only necessary because the licenses are valuable corporate assets and available in the marketplace as such. In a major market, the investor-driven annual return on capital required for just the book value of the license can easily exceed the cost of actually broadcasting, even if the station were to purchase a new 50kW transmitter every year. Many of us reading could personally fund a 10kW station from the ground up tomorrow if the FCC were just handing out licenses to anybody that might do a good job locally. Instead, Pai represents true regulatory capture, where the FCC will take no action that could imperil corporations that carry billions of dollars in license valuations on their books just because local (or smaller) control would be "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity."
Re: (Score:2)
So I have different feelings about it. upfront, I agree clear channel (the owners behind iheartradio) needs to go and broadcast monopolies should be killed. But I think there needs to be massive reform of the FM band anyways. Simply put AM and FM radio were dying already and the FCC is dedicating way too much spectrum to it. It shouldn't go away completely, but most locales only really need a handful of stations. Reform the licensing. Require local ownership, set a few small channels on the band within a ti
Re: (Score:2)
It's been like that long before he was even employed by the FCC.
You aren't wrong. But the old days where the F.C.C. kept ownership in the public interest, and where media companies couldn't own all the outlets in an area are long gone. You would think that the free market and competition would have made broadcasting great. In fact, it destroyed it. We even have astation nearby that often plays two feeds at the same time. No one's at the helm. The swamp is still pretty swampy.
Re: (Score:2)
The religious stations are all playing the same shows as each other as well.
Re: (Score:2)
In EVERY area, you mean.
iHeartRadio bought out ClearChannel, who owns something like 90% of the radio stations out there. So every market have the same set of stations because ClearChannel produce the content once and distribute it so all the stations play the same music. The only thing that changes is the station identi
Re:Awww Gee (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox News says quite differently. No other News organization has had more influence in the past 20+ years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lefties seem to just assume that their predeliction for following a leader extends to us righties.
You are blind to your own predilections. The GOP has long been extremely hierarchical and personality-driven. Regan was the old god. Trump is the new god, and the GOP has essentially become a Trump cult. People will refuse to wear masks and attend large gatherings as a sign of fealty. Evangelical churches (a cornerstone of the American Right) are also often headed by charismatic leaders like Jerry Falwell, whose son was instrumental in elevating Trump. Even the notion of "Originalism" seems like an atte
Re: Awww Gee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, we wear masks because scientists say it helps. People who don't and don't work on social distancing are more at risk. Unless there's evidence that it doesn't help, or it hurts, then we reconsider. Why people want to conflate this with politics is... insanity.
It is an object lesson in how when bombarded with an unrelenting amount of propaganda, a fair number of people can be convinced that their best interests are served by harming themselves. Faith based science.
Re: Awww Gee (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP and the right are two different things. One is a political party, the other is a broad term for people whose philosophy is less about the state and more about the individual and voluntary associations among individuals.
You do realize that you are claiming thatr Right wingers are a broad range if philosophy, and that anyone who you declare as left wing is an odd unified group.
Okay, let's chat a little.
Bernie Sanders versus Joe Biden versus some of the left wing women that were running early. This is a monolithic group? Okay - explain
And the almost complete silence of The right who didn't do anything else but enable Trump. The Newt Gingrich Contract on America that worked very hard to eliminate the moderates in the
Re: (Score:2)
First, and most obviously, Trump proved that the Right's commitment to free trade, individual liberty, and federalism was a sham. Senator Mittens was the only GOP Senator with the balls to vote to remove the Trump for using the power of his office to pressure a foreign country to help him with a domestic election. For the rest, the only principle is power.
With that in mind, GOP had access to the levers of power by exploiting the resentments of lots of identity groups. This is affinity marketing gone wild
Re: (Score:2)
This assertion that people on the left are following leaders, and that those on the right are individualistic, is an outright delusional reversal of reality. There's nothing like the Trump personality cult on the left. No mandatory pledges of loyalty to the authority figure du jour required to run for office or avoid ostracism. American conservatism is all about conformity and the suppression of individuality - deviate from the yes-man mentality and you're punished as a traitor. And for some reason you proj
Re: (Score:2)
And for some reason you project your mentality onto people who don't think like you at all. Why is that? Are you ashamed of it and it makes you feel better to think that everybody is like you?
After a while, the big lie propaganda really sinks in. Tell the poor guy that he is a rugged individual often enough, and he'll allow you to pick his pocket, keep him poor, and he'll even blame that group you tell him is harming him.
It's sadly amusing. Our local MAGAs are largely made up of people living pretty much in squalor, driving ancient vehicles, and hardly two nickels to rub together. You would think that they'd be doing great after four years of MAGA, but their status is just 4 years of entropy.
Re: Awww Gee (Score:2)
"Lefties seem to just assume that their predeliction for following a leader extends to us righties. Perhaps this is why they think we're being disingenuous when we talk about individual liberty as a core value."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I have a one word response for you: Trump.
You fuckers linked arms and sang for that prick for four years. You provably give no fucks about freedom.
Re: Awww Gee (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL,that's hysterical. So the right wing is diverse because portions agree with "every left wing policy" while that is not true for "right wing policies". I think you don't know who the "right wing" are beyond this "hatred of one part of the dominant discourse" which you chose not to name.
I do find it interesting, though, that you define the right wing by a shared hatred. There's a whole lot of truth to that.
Left wing and right wing donors are NOT the same people. People who contribute to both are lookin
Now the real question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are there no laws concerning employment after having a federal "job" with the companies you were "regulating"?
Another question is will Pai(d) end up at Verizon or AT&T or tMobile with a 7 figure salary?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now the real question is (Score:4, Informative)
Because that would stifle cronyism, a politician's best friend.
Politicians rarely support, draft, or pass laws that would negatively affect them, regardless of whether or not those laws have the public's support.
Re: (Score:3)
Because that would stifle cronyism, a politician's best friend.
Politicians rarely support, draft, or pass laws that would negatively affect them, regardless of whether or not those laws have the public's support.
Partially that. It might have more to do with the staffers, the ones who are actually writing and researching the legislation. They tend to be very smart and well educated but don't get paid much (fiscal prudence!!), which means they're also there to pad their resumee before going to industry.
If you think about the day-to-day work of a politician and they're running a small organization. Do you really want to be the boss who announces that they're going to torpedo the career prospects of your employees?
Re: Now the real question is (Score:2)
The corporations are writing the legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
In those cases I suspect it has a lot more to do with upsetting the ones that sign their paychecks. (their big campaign contributors / owners)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With any luck he'll be put in jail along with the rest of them. You can't just say "Nuh uh, my job goes like this!" when you're the head of the FCC. He broke the law, and the people he broke it for likely implicates he committed treason knowingly and willingly.
Re: (Score:2)
With any luck he'll be put in jail along with the rest of them. You can't just say "Nuh uh, my job goes like this!" when you're the head of the FCC. He broke the law, and the people he broke it for likely implicates he committed treason knowingly and willingly.
What law did he break?
Re:Now the real question is (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Now the real question is (Score:5, Informative)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
John Brennan is laughing at you.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not put in jail for being bad at your job. Perjury could get jail time, however out of all the Trump Administration Targets Pai isn't so high on the list.
The Democrats are well aware that this wasn't an election where nearly 80 million people loved Biden. but a case where nearly 80 million people hated Trump. A good number of these voters may go back to GOP the next election, as hopefully Trump will not run again, because hopefully it will be responsible adult vs responsible adult with different i
Re: (Score:3)
out of all the Trump Administration Targets Pai isn't so high on the list.
And that is truly telling. Because he's pretty bad.
Re:Now the real question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are there no laws concerning employment after having a federal "job" with the companies you were "regulating"?
Another question is will Pai(d) end up at Verizon or AT&T or tMobile with a 7 figure salary?
A better question is why a Federal employee can pass his time lying through his teeth without being put in jail for fraud and indeed corruption of his office.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost like a non compete clause?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more worried about the reverse direction - a person becoming a federal employee charged with "regulating" a company that he was recently employed by, or contracted by.
Which, btw, Pai also was.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple Answers, you may not like them.
1. Ending a political/appointed government job shouldn't discredit you from being able to work again. As after working such a job, you may have more detail on what is going on. So such companies may value your experience. Having someone in your business that knows how things work isn't a bad thing for either side. While I don't necessarily wish Pai well. We should be very careful on getting revenge on all the Trump appointees, because tides will turn back to the G
Re:Now the real question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it *should* make it illegal to get a job with any company that you had been responsible for regulating. I'll agree that it doesn't, but it ought to. In fact I'd go further and say it should prohibit you from accepting any money or other favors from such companies, whether or not you are employed by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing how things work? It's these companies that write up a lot of the policies for politicians to rubber stamp.
Pai left his telecom job through a revolving door [wikipedia.org] and the whole plan is to benefit himself and his former/future employers.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly who would you expect to have expertise in that field except someone who worked in the telecommunications industry? It's sort of a thorny problem, since it requires someone familiar with the industry, management experience, and also a willingness to side AGAINST those same interests. The alternative is to appoint a political hack who has no clue what the day to day issues are.
Remember that Obama appointed an industry insider as well (Wheeler), and that turned out a lot better than Pai's tenure.
"I believe in knowing what you're doing" (Score:2)
Barak Obama said "I'm a believer in knowing what you're doing - when you apply for a job".
Some would say that the head of CDC should be an infectious disease expert. Somebody who knows about public health. Somebody who was at the top of that field before taking the reigns of the CDC, and would work in that field after their stunt in public service.
Some would say that the head of the Cybersecurity Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) should be somebody who knows something about cybersecurity and Infrast
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of job would supply qualified candidates for new commissioners?
What kind of job would ex-commissioners be qualified for?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it's sometimes called the revolving door. When it's busy, and people are moving between the public and private sector all the time, it's bad, because this gives outsize influence to the private sector. But if you limit the employment options of people hired for government positions (or limit the hiring pool in a similar manner) you limit the number of people who will accept the job (or are considered for the job) which is why you can't go too far in the other direction.
It's a similar balancing a
Don't worry about Peanut Butter Pai (Score:2)
He's got a nice corner office at Verizon that's been reserved for him for the last four years.
I'm sure he'll be well taken care of (Score:5, Insightful)
We should have a law that if you've served in a high office (certainly anything appointed by a president or elected nationally) you can no longer take part in private business, own stock or anything of the sort. You get a generous pension and free healthcare for life. If you don't like it you don't go into public service.
Yeah, it means we sometimes pay people for life who barely did any work, but so what? We're doing that anyway when they cash out their chips to the companies they sold us out to.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your sentiments, it is not practical. Industry can offer much more monetary rewards with which to buy retirement and health care. In short, anyone valuable would never opt for a government job. I don't know what the answer is, but this won't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
We should have a law that if you've served in a high office (certainly anything appointed by a president or elected nationally) you can no longer take part in private business, own stock or anything of the sort.
You get a generous pension and free healthcare for life. If you don't like it you don't go into public service.
This would be disastrous for government. Can you imagine someone like Trump being able to hang that over someone's head? Either get in line and do whatever batshit crazy shit I want you to do or face being forced to retire and on welfare for the rest of your life. No thank you comrade...
Much better to treat the symptoms enabling aggregation of power into the hands of corporations than to entertain solutions which aggregate power into the hands of government.
AMF (Score:3, Funny)
Adios mother fucker, Ajit PAID.
Good. (Score:2)
Can we post the grumpy cat image?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we post the grumpy cat image?
No. It's probably copyrighted.
My angle (Score:5, Informative)
As a licensed amateur radio operator, I wonder what the future will behold. A lot of frequencies are being corded off where the community cannot legally use them as we have in years past. Here's just one recent example --> http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-o... [arrl.org]. With all of the newer technology and protocols being developed, ham radio isn't as dead as you'd think. Which makes this all the more sobering...
Re: (Score:3)
I assume this is a poor attempt to troll (http://www.arrl.org/digital-data-modes). I'm not a senior citizen and was able to have two-way communication with my high altitude balloon upwards of around 120,000 feet above the earth. Next up will be a CubeSat or TubeSat. Also, being able to pursue SSTV and radio communication with the ISS isn't along the lines of someone struggling to work a Jitterbug phone. lol.
Is this really a shocker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could the republicans still win for Trump? (Score:2)
Could Biden's victory still be overturned by republicans looking for any way to get Trump back into presidency? I ask, because any action by Biden at this point could be erased if Trump manages to get back into power, in the crafty way he has always managed to turn the tables.
Re:Could the republicans still win for Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
Short answer, no. Biden leads by far too many votes in far too many states for legal challenges or recounts to make any difference. Biden's margin of victory is about the same as Trump's in 2016.
Replublicans would have to just plain throw democracy out the window if they wanted to attempt to jury-rig a second Trump term, and it doesn't look like most of them have the stomach for that. Nor would they be likely to succeed if they tried.
Re: (Score:2)
darn i am late (Score:2)
and everybody beat me to it.
now i have to go back home and rethink my lifes decisions
Re:"Won" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Both candidates are declaring victory.. (One is being backed up by the media (with valid reason) and the other isn't).
The truth is, nobody has technically won yet and there is at least *some* question about who will eventually win, though it's highly improbable the media is wrong. I know it's not popular in some circles, but we need to let the process play out in the individual states and in the courts to make sure the law is properly followed. Back in 2000 this process took until December 12th to be full
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's how all elections have gone, but I imagine you weren't so concerned when the media declared Trump had won in 2016
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's how all elections have gone, but I imagine you weren't so concerned when the media declared Trump had won in 2016
Then why did Hillary concede?
I think she regrets having conceded so soon given her advice to Joe, but looking back at the situation, what do you think she could have contested? I've got to admit, I wasn't looking for issues with the election that time around and if you look at the final vote totals and the winning margins, I don't think there was much hope that a recount or contesting how the votes got counted would have changed things. Let's look in the rearview mirror and engage in some hindsight Monday
Re: (Score:2)
She conceded because enough states had reported results that Trump had over 270 votes. That's how all elections except this one have gone in recent history
Re: (Score:2)
Except they aren't really being "actively contested" since the Trump lawsuits are pretty much all just fluff and Biden still has enough votes even if a couple states switched. It's not like we're down to one state where a recount could change it all and there's no reason to expect any changes going forwards
Re:"Won" (Score:4, Funny)
I've heard something similar four years ago. But her emails...
Re:"Won" (Score:5, Insightful)
It is perhaps true that nothing has been certified but there is still lots of information from government agencies about vote counts. This has been true for just about every election and the press regularly calls these elections. It is true, though, that it is possible that Biden won Wyoming. We won't know until it is certified.
If the margins were much smaller (e.g. a repeat of Florida 2000), I would say you have a point. But the margins are sufficiently large in enough states (e.g. all of them) that a recount is very, very unlikely to change the preliminary results in even one state, let alone more than one (recounts seldom change the result by more than a few hundred). The only hope for Trump is that he finds fraud somewhere (and convince the courts that it is fraud), but given the evidence presented so far, I think that is highly unlikely. So far he has repeatedly failed in the courts with only minor victories that can't change the outcome.
The odds that Trump will wind up winning are tiny so it is reasonable to make the assumption for now (I am sure you and I likely daily make assumptions that have a higher probability of being wrong).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you make an assumption you not only weigh the risks of being wrong, but also the consequences of being wrong. To me, the consequences, including the psychological consequences, of being wrong in my making the assumption that Biden won are small. If I had a tremendous personal investment in Trump being right, there would be a lot of cognitive dissonance.
As a practical matter, I don't place all that much faith in the actions of Biden. I expect that he's stop trying to actively destroy the countr
Re:"Won" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it's funny that you should pair Trump and Hannity. Check out Trump's Twitter feed over the next few hours. It looks like he's decided to take down Fox's viewership along with his own presidency. He's promoting Newsmax as alternatives.
Rather than being a friend to media on the Right, Trump might end up causing significant fragmentation before this is all over.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump fits the textbook narcissist description. He isn't confident and strong. But so self absorbed from his mental illness that he cannot imagine that he did anything wrong. And if anyone tries to break this self image, they will get their wrath.
I have dealt with narcissist bosses in the past. They got the jobs, because for the casual observer they seem like a strong confident person. However if you need to work with them, you see they are very self conscious and need constant reassurance.
Like how you
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, pretty much all elected office holders at the federal level are narcissistic at some level. You sort of need to be one to survive the election process.
That's not to say Trump is somehow excused, by no means, but that it really doesn't matter that he's a classic narcissist, because he's a very high functioning one if you ask me, and has managed to perform at a very high level during his life. Most narcissists I know, are actually pretty pitiful people, who have exaggerated view of their accomp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure such a day hasn't happened for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much like most Zombies... they just shamble around aimlessly until someone goads them into action..
Think Shaun of the Dead.. but with more drooling and Media influence.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to be on the other side of the cattle-prod, hey, trumptard ?
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to be on the other side of the cattle-prod, hey, trumptard ?
Well, I'm not happy with the results of course, but I'm not going to be screaming at the sky or making speeches about how much I've thought about blowing up the White House. You won't find a bunch of us rioting and looting on ignoration day either or cheering while somebody holds up a bloody facsimile of Joe's severed head calling it art. But I digress..
It's not that bad though. We are likely going to keep control of the Senate though the runoffs in GA and have the right to say "no" to legislation and no
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, I suppose that "nobody's won the elections" until the results of the electoral college are certified before Congress. But lots of people are saying that a couple of different people have won. And the POTUS is one of the ones saying that, and I *think* he counts as a government agency...though possibly not. I happen to think that he lies more often than he breathes, but that doesn't mean he's not an official government agency.
Re:Net Neutrality Was A Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
You maybe right, but now the internet is the same shitty internet for higher prices. Right. Nothing changed while he's been there. Hell, AT&T dropped DSL and now they sell "internet." Runs on DSL hardware, but it's not DSL.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: AT&T Gigafiber?
AT&T has been better than Xfinity, but that's damning with faint praise.
Re:Net Neutrality Was A Scam (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, talk about left wing bias. Has the end of Net Neutrality resulted in any of the horrors that left wing activists said would occur? The answer is no. Net Neutrality was a solution to a problem that never existed. You are all still streaming, downloading, surfing with no issues just like before. The Internet is just fine without more gubmint regulation.
You don't see any wrong or harm being caused when telcos slow internet speeds?
Verizon Throttled Fire Department's 'Unlimited' Data During Calif. Wildfire [slashdot.org]
CenturyLink Blocked Its Customers' Internet Access in Order To Show an Ad [slashdot.org]
US Telcos Are Slowing Internet Traffic To and From Popular OTT Apps Like YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video, New Research Finds [slashdot.org]
Sprint Is Throttling Microsoft's Skype Service, Study Finds [slashdot.org]
How about the misleading "unlimited" data advertising by the wireless carriers and how consumers have to pay extra / add on additional service(s) to get real unlimited data?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually that "unlimited" originally meant that you could be logged on 24 hours a day, not unlimited high speed. They just kept that term in the contracts when that became a standard feature with DSL rather than dial-up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at your Streaming Companies to choose from after 4 years. We have the creation of CBS All Access, Disney+, Peacock, HBO Max. All large established media companies with a hand in the ISP market.
We haven't seen to many startup companies in the last 4 years of note, because the cost of entry is now much too high.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's more about content ownership than anything else. Why do you think Netflix started makes huge efforts on that front in the past several years.
If we had something like a sort of FRAND licensing for movies and TV shows we might see more small players that could compete on features and innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're simply going "I wish".
The actual rules and processes of an election are one thing. But smart people are going to be making investment choices based on early and imperfect information. That's the way capitalism works.
Re: (Score:3)
You weren't asking for certified election results when Trump was declared the winner in 2016, were you, trumptard ?
Sit down and let the adults talk.
Oh, the fucking irony...
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you have any evidence to doubt the countless statisticians that have made careers of analyzing and interpreting the election tallies from all the states in order to come to the same independent conclusion as all the other statisticians - which are significantly aligned with expectations of various districts and regions based on historical voting trends - I would say that you're simply deluded.
This thing is over. Trump lost. Everyone knows he lost, except for maybe Trump himself because he's also ho
Re:Fearmongering fraudsters - nothing manifested. (Score:4, Informative)
Yet nothing of the doom-mongering came to pass. We have seen increased speeds and new advances in internet connectivity.
We have? When did I miss that? No, what I've seen is the slow increase in cost, while the service stays basically the same, and a few major companies have retained near-monopoly control over large portions of the Internet. You know all the people screaming about big tech companies being too big and powerful? Those are exactly the sorts of companies that Net Neutrality was intended to make it feasible to compete against.
There was no doom mongering. What happened without NN was exactly what everyone with half a brain said would happen. Big companies would get bigger, small companies would get squeezed out, and fewer and fewer independent voices would exist. And now those same politicians are screaming, "Why couldn't we have prevented this?" as though their actions weren't the reason.
And this is what will keep happening as long as we elect people to office based on how much they want power, rather than based on how mentally equipped they are to wield it.
Re:For shame, Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you use simple math, you can see that it isn't in dispute at all.
However there is always counting going on after a state has been considered a win. As they normally want to get the full official count of every vote. But in terms of going further, the math is quite clear.
Biden has won the election in Electoral Votes and the Popular Vote. Trump may be able (but not likely) to win 1 disputed state however that will not be enough to win the election at all.
4 years ago, the Liberals didn't like the election results, however they accepted the facts that Trump won the electoral vote. They were hoping that some electoral votes knowing how much of a bad idea Trump is would change their vote, but it didn't happen.
The "Not My President" call wasn't a reflection that they didn't believe the results of the election but a stance that Trump doesn't reflect their ideals or morals.
Re:For shame, Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me quote you, four years ago: FUCK YOUR FEELINGS, YOU LOST.
Re: For shame, Slashdot! (Score:3)
He's pointing out reich-wing hypocrisy and here you are crying about hypocrisy.
Way to miss the point, snowflake. Cry us another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The only people contesting the outcome are the losers. Everyone else can see the writing on the wall.
It's funny because everybody agrees.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like with Al Franken or Al Gore? How many years were they still claiming that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore?
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink only needs to exist because the incumbent providers are shitheads who refuse to play fair, and not use their granted monopolies for the worst of rent-seeking behavior.
Internet service should be a utility, just like water, electricity, natural gas, and sewer service. These motherfuckers will spend billions to protect their shitty business model which consists of fucking over their customers specifically because their customers have nowhere else to go.
Here's to hoping the fuckery stops at some point
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, he didn't want net neutrality to be how it's DEFINED.
Then maybe he should have defined it seeing how he was in a position to do so. Also why was he dishonest to Congress about public opinion expressed on the FCC website for Net Neutrality.