
FCC Inspector General to Investigate Ajit Pai Over Sinclair Deal - catalin_dev
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-ajit-pai.html
======
Steltek
And when the IG reaches the obvious conclusion that Pai is making laws to
benefit one and only one party, to ensure Americans get only one twisted view,
what then?

Nothing. Because nothing will change as long as the GOP has a scrap of power.
Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.

~~~
minikites
You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but
they really aren't. Only one party is doing this.

~~~
microcolonel
> _You 're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same"
> but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this._

This is the height of arrogance.

Either major party can be characterized as the reigning party of broken
promises and slime. Both of them will represent their own policies as of six
years prior as reprehensible when the opposing party runs on those same
policies; and both will use whatever power the electorate gives them to enrich
themselves (or at least their own cause), if that is an option.

~~~
criley2
False equivalence is a powerful form of propaganda in heavy use today.

It is our duty to be objective and rational, and that requires us to challenge
and reject "false equivalence" arguments whether it's Putin, or Assad, or
Duerte, or Erdogan rationalizing their despotic government or US Republicans
rationalizing their unprecedented and unequal malpractice in American
government.

I feel that anyone who dares suggest that "both parties are the same" is so
fundamentally ignorant that they're suffering from Dunning Kruger / illusory
knowledge.

One only needs to read about "starving the beast" (a nefarious legislative
plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget
crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs) or the Project for a
New American Century (Republican PAC in 1999 which planned the invasions of
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria in the early 90's before GWB re-
invaded the middle east -- that list sound familiar?) to understand how the
modern assault on Liberal Democratic order in the West was planned and
executed.

I'm just so tired of false equivalence.

~~~
SmirkingRevenge
> "a _nefarious_ legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to
> intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social
> welfare programs"

That's an odd thing to cite as it really isn't a form of corruption.

A limited federal government is a core pillar of conservatism and the
republican party. That "nefarious" plan is the what they (and many right-
voters) consider the most viable strategy for reducing the size and scope of
the federal government. I think you'll find more instances of
corruption/pandering/populism on the right, in the places where they are
expanding the federal government.

Its a bit like calling democrats corrupt because they have a "nefarious" plans
to confiscate more of your money (in the form of taxes) to pay for federal
programs.

I find this is the way many of the back-n-forths go in the "party x is more
corrupt" game. <insert party here> is so demonized in the minds of their
opponents, literally acting in accordance with their political philosophy
appears like a form of corruption.

I guess the "they want to kill your babies!" style rhetoric actually works.

------
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."

~~~
JoeAltmaier
And you believe them? The big money interests _promised_ not to violate net
neutrality, if only we would remove all the rules first? And we're supposed to
_believe_ that?

~~~
Cknight70
Not sure if the internet freedom bill was written maliciously, or with a "one
problem at a time" approach. I would have loved for there to be a proposal to
replace title 2 with something better, but maybe Ajit Pai knew straight up
removing it would be more popular with the Republicans interests.

I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being
Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their
service much more efficient, win win for everyone.

That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't
share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans
seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin
with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this
without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Just look at countries without protections: your phone provider extorts
monthly fees to 'provide' access to facebook etc. In fact they're doing
nothing. Except blocking access until you pay. Simple shakedown. This is what
we have to look forward to.

~~~
Cknight70
I'm not looking forward to that future either, which is why I'm still being
politically active about net neutrality, just not title two.

The good thing is that the new law doesn't have to be permanent, there have
already been a net neutrality specific law in Montana, I don't know if it is
any good and I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be willing to bet its
more relevant than title 2 was.

I've also seen a lot more articles talking about lack of competition in areas
ISP problems and such since title 2 was repealed. So there is still hope!

------
TheAceOfHearts
Since this is marked as a dupe, I think this was the previous discussion [0].

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050)

------
sloan_royal
title is wrong, investigation has been going on since the end of last year

