• @pingveno
    link
    English
    311 months ago

    No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it “succeeded” in that Pai’s rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.

    • @underisk
      link
      English
      511 months ago

      I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.

      • @pingveno
        link
        English
        211 months ago

        he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up

        That was by requirement. The FCC board requires that no more than 3 commissioners come from the same party. In practice, that means 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 of the president’s party. Pai was appointed to the Republican slot but was in the minority during the Obama administration. Trump moved him into the role as chair and nominated another Republican, making him both chair and part of the majority.

        • @underisk
          link
          English
          211 months ago

          He may have been required to appoint someone outside his party but he wasn’t required to appoint Mitch McConnell’s recommendation and obvious telecom shill Ajit Pai. Was it possible for him to appoint a member of a third party or is that also against all these awfully convenient rules that get in the way of those poor Democrats accomplishing anything approaching positive change? Could the current FCC go back and reverse the changes that the Democrats definitely didn’t actually want or is that also against the rules?

          • @pingveno
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            Required, no. But anyone the Republicans put forward is just going to be shill for big business anyway.

            I’m not sure how a third party would work. I suspect playing fast and loose with the intentions of the bill (2-2 major party split plus a chairperson matching the president) would just get the confirmation blocked.

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Democrats nearly always choosing Republicans for non-elected offices so they “don’t look partisan.” Republicans always choosing Republicans for non-elected positions because they don’t actually give a shit about looking partisan.

        This is part of why the FBI has always been run by Republicans. Not once have we had a Democrat in charge of the FBI.

        At least the FCC has a slightly better track record. Wheeler was a good FCC chairman.

        • @underisk
          link
          English
          111 months ago

          The country would be a lot better off if the Democrats abandoned their devotion to “bipartisanship”. It’s a one way street that seems to only exist as a convenient roadblock to implementing any kind of positive reforms.