
FCC’s Inspector General investigating whether Ajit Pai acted inappropriately - cpeterso
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb53jn/fcc-inspector-general-investigation-ajit-pai-corruption
======
akshayB
I still cannot believe why something as serious as Media consolidation & net
neutrality laws are pretty much in this guy's hands.

~~~
atonse
Well it's whoever is in charge of the FCC.

I'm still shocked that he even became a commissioner.

~~~
JohnTHaller
In normal times, I could understand that shock. But looking at everyone else
that's a part of this administration...

~~~
Mononokay
EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit.

EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS.

To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this
administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by
the 45th.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue

Yes, he is.

> and not one entirely of this administration.

Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.

> He was appointed by the 44th President

That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are
required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition,
_chosen_ by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being
formally appointed by the President. Pai was _chosen_ by Mitch McConnell.

> and got a promotion by the 55th.

You're off by ten.

~~~
Mononokay
> You're off by ten.

Agh, I need to proofread more.

> That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are
> required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition,
> chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being
> formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell.

It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that
will harm American consumers?

> Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.

Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an
Independent/Green Party member?

> Yes, he is.

The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other
party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he _has_ to promote a
Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party?

___

I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that
> will harm American consumers?

It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be
confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in
practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters
have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if
unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.)

So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even
worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his
successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given
the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of
the government functioning _at all_.

> couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an
> Independent/Green Party member?

No. He could have _nominated_ such a person, but they would have zero chance
of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any
choice of confirmation, find someone who enough _Republican Senators_ liked
better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of
their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any
_better_.

The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power
in the American system.

------
Cknight70
I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net
neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their
responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this
story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being
bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money.

All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things
like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing
companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws
are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my
representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I
can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would
urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to
stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.

[0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's
responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me:
"Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and
open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my
colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality
principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government
regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and
economy."

------
gumby
Regardless of the merits of the case, does "local control" matter? Any web
site is available in pretty much every inhabited corner of the US (and this
means Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, but also Medium, NYTimes.com,
Foxnews.com, random blogs, and, let's not forget, stormfront, 4chan,
foxnews.com, and mother jones.com. The big broadcast networks (Comcast-NBC,
CBS, Disney/ABC, and in radio, Clearchannel) dominate the airwaves in every
market, just as they are entering eclipse. Do "local" stations even matter?

FWIW I _really, really_ dislike Sinclair Publishing, haven't liked almost
anything Pai has said to date, and am somewhat willing to believe, a priori,
that he is corrupt. And still I am not sure if there is really a problem.

~~~
vec
I would argue that local channels matter even more now than they used to.

Most of my day-to-day news sources are national or international. Most of the
media and pop culture I consume too. I'm lucky enough to still have a local
newspaper that does some actual reporting, but it's probably not long for this
world. Even social media and the water cooler at work are more interested in
the widely distributed professional communities I'm a member of then the
actual physical community I live in.

My city's nightly news broadcast is close to the only reliable source of
information about my municipal and state government in my media diet. In all
but the most sensational of cases, it's likely to be the one place I hear
about huge classes of events which will have far more of an impact on my life
than whatever is on CNN today. For all but the federal level, it's as likely
as not to be my sole passive source of information about political candidates.

I like to think I'm an unusually well-informed citizen (by which I mean I'm a
politics junkie) and without a half hour of TV news every night I would have
absolutely no clue what most of my government is doing in my name with my tax
dollars.

------
benbristow
And who's to say he can't be persuaded by some green bills either?

~~~
uytuyiyt
I post on
[http://reddit.com/r/noNetNeutrality](http://reddit.com/r/noNetNeutrality)
occasionally. Can you show me exactly how he was paid and by who? I hear this
all the time but no evidence has been cited.

~~~
ceejayoz
I think it'd be silly to assert he's being directly bribed with big suitcases
full of cash.

The concepts of regulatory capture and revolving doors are hardly new or
significantly disputed, though. He's worked for Verizon in the past, and I'd
fully expect him to land a nice industry job after his tenure. Doing nice
things for industry helps a lot in future employment prospects.

He has joked in the past about being a "Verizon puppet"
([https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-
jokes-a...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-
being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/)) and given his actions I think
there's a bit of truth to the joke.

------
aaronbrethorst
Typically over-the-top Vice headline. This is what Inspectors General are
supposed to do.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_(U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Inspector_General_\(United_States\))

edit: let me pose this differently, _who else_ would be investigating Pai in
his role as head of the FCC for potential misconduct in that role? That is the
job of the IG.

~~~
samstave
> __ _This is what Inspectors General are supposed to do._ __

Sure, but this is the first time in my lifetime (43yo) that I have heard of an
FCC head being investigated... AND I have spent my entire career online...

So this is actually big news (to me) - in that I already was aware that I
thought Pai was a corporate douche-plant... and ___NOW_ __he is being
investigated??? huh. so... yeah - I was speculating previously that he was a
"bad dude" \- but now he is a ___Bad Dude_ __

~~~
greglindahl
The NYT article pointed out that Tom Wheeler, the previous FCC head, was also
investigated by the FCC IG.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-
sinclair-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-
ajit-pai.html)

~~~
jerkstate
yes, but this is the first time that the media has made a big deal out of it,
so it must be more important.

