Thankfully, his anti-regulation stance is going to have a lot of opposition, particularly from the net neutrality crowd (including powerful allies like Google). But still - it's not like any of the other agencies like the EPA got a better head.

Particularly with the federal hiring freeze, I wonder what DC's workforce is thinking right now.

I think DC's workforce is thinking about getting into contracting or consulting. Anytime Republicans cut into the actual federal workforce they just make up for it with outside contracting. Then they can say they cut the workforce while still paying 2.5X+ the amount they would if they just hired someone.

This is very trhe but you left out the key part: contracting companies are usually very profitable and that can translate into political funding. Government agencies are prohibited from direct support and the non-defense workforce has been the punching bag for so long that they're not going to donate personally to the party which has been attacking them.

We can be guaranteed almost nil technological progress or freedom with this guy in office. Watch. Net Neutrality first, then more DMCA-like restrictions coming afterwards.

FWIW, when the previous FCC chairman was nominated there was concern about his being a former industry lobbyist [1] - but he supported net neutrality strongly. (On the other hand, he and the Obama administration didn't do much to prevent mergers like Charter + TWC, etc.)

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/new-fcc-chairman-...

It was a surprise because the first time the FCC ever talked about net neutrality, the supposedly ISP-friendly guy came out on the right side. Pai has made his position clear: net neutrality blocks innovation and investment. He also doesn't seem to know what he's talking about all the time: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015011...

> On the other hand, he and the Obama administration didn't do much to prevent mergers like Charter + TWC, etc.

The Charter/TWC deal was preceded by the (much more significant, if it had been successful) deal with Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The FCC did look into that, though the deal was called off before the FCC would have announced any action (if any at all) that they would take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_Time_War...

Wheeler's lobbying days were decades ago. Pai's consistent anti-consumer, pro-industry approach on nearly every issue is incredibly recent.

I'm generally for Net Neutrality but you seem to be suggesting that regulation drives technological progress. Modulo things like natural monopolies, unaccounted-for externalities, etc, isn't the opposite usually true?

Also, are you suggesting that Ajit Pai represents "regulatory capture" and has no regard for the consumers of the industry he helps regulates? Perhaps it is the case that he's a terrible person, but it might also be the case that he has a different perspective on how best to drive innovation in the telecom industry.

I'm not sure how I feel about Trump but he's a new President and I'm going to root for him and for his team until he makes an actual mistake and not a maybe-could-turn-into-a-mistake-someday choice.

Well you're right: maybe Pai doesn't hate consumers (though if we treat him as honest, he's dim enough to inadvertently be anti-consumer[0]), and he has very different views about how to drive innovation.[1] But it's about increasing investment and profitability for large ISPs through some of their more despised ideas that the net neutrality rules tried to preempt: expensive peering, paid speedups, and tiered access for consumers.[2] All of these things are very bad for tech startups and tech-savvy consumers. You're not going to find much sympathy for those ideas 'round these parts, or really anywhere outside Comcast's boardroom.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/2015011...

[1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/23/new-fcc-c...

>Modulo things like natural monopolies, unaccounted-for externalities, etc, isn't the opposite usually true?

The purpose of "net neutrality" is precisely to combat the problem of natural monopolies in the ISP market and the inevitable abuses that result. Perhaps a better solution which has seen some success in other countries at promoting competition is local loop unbundling, but this guy has shown no sign of preferring that.

Net neutrality requires regulation. Otherwise everyone will follow what T-Mobile is doing.

The difference with Ajit Pai is that he has years of recent history making statements which are often ungrounded in reality but consistently very friendly to large ISPs. Ars Technica's covered that a lot over the years (https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=ajit+pai) – here are some highlights:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-a...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/ajit-pai-net-neut...

“Strong net neutrality rules in the US would give authoritarian states an excuse to strengthen their grip over the Internet, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai reportedly said today.”

(see also http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...)

And, when network neutrality didn't go his way, he asked Congress to sabotage enforcement:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/new-tactic-in-war-on...

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/05/ajit-pai-votes-again...

He objected to the Charter TWC merger on the grounds that it should NOT have conditions prohibiting “imposing data caps and overage fees on Internet customers, charging large online content providers for network interconnection, and stifling growth of online video by demanding restrictive clauses in contracts with programmers.”

He's convinced the bad guy in the paid fast lane program is Netflix, not the ISPs trying to double-charge for service and made some truly bizarre claims about how open standards work:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/netfli...

When Congress was investigating the network neutrality rule-making process, he flat out refused to supply the requested documents to the committee:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/fcc-re...

When the FCC chairman tried to set a modern definition for broadband speed, he opposed it:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...

One of two votes against opening up cable box competition:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/fcc-votes-to-unlock-...

He was one of the two votes against a cap on the rates phone companies charge prison inmates: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/prison-phone-comp...

Net neutrality advocates want very limited technological progress: they want faster speeds but no other "innovation" from ISPs. So regulation is the perfect tool.

> Net neutrality advocates want very limited technological progress

Untrue of any of the net neutrality advocates I know.

Net neutrality advocates don't see the oligopolistic (and often regionally monopolistic) market for internet access as one that positions ISPs in the US to be agents of rapid technology change in any circumstances.

Assuming that those who disagree with you about policy must agree with you about facts (e.g., what would happen in the absence of their preferred policy) is a good way to assure that your inferences about their motivation will be wildly incorrect.

Note that I am mostly a net neutrality advocate. I agree that ISPs aren't very innovative and I would further add that virtually all of their "innovations" are anti-consumer.

What other sorts of innovations do ISPs have to offer? Admittedly I'm a curmudgeon, but all I want is decent service at a fair price...

Throttling video to prevent you from going over your cap (T-Mobile).

Spying on you and selling that information to reduce your bill (AT&T).

Extorting money from CDNs (Comcast).

So, same as the previous govt?

Does this signal "bye bye" to Net Neutrality?

I have opened this link two times thinking it was related to FreeCodeCamp (www.freecodecamp.com) lol

Anyone else besides Haley, who considers herself white?

What exactly do you mean by that?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley#2010_gubernatorial...

To quote the relevant part: "Nikki Haley identified herself as 'white' on her voter registration card in 2001"

> What exactly do you mean by that?

She literally listed herself as "white" on her voter registration form[0][1].

[0] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/indian-nikki-haley-s...

[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-07-28-sout...

To be fair the usadtoday link says it was not clear on the form whether Indian means native American or from the Indian sub continent.

> To be fair the usadtoday link says it was not clear on the form whether Indian means native American or from the Indian sub continent.

Sure, but under that classification people from India are generally treated as "Asian". (Which is itself a problem, but a separate one). For a person who's of Punjabi descent to self-identify as "white" is - well, let's just say it's highly unusual and leave it at that.

Because it goes against the leftist portrayal of Trump as being racist. So they remain silent.

Actually it does not contradict the absolutely correct portrayal of him as a racist.

1. He did not speak of India and Indians in the same way he did Mexico and Mexicans, of which was textbook racism, i.e. generalizing negative stereotypes based on ethnicity, promotion of conspiracy theories, etc. 2. Racism applies to attitudes/beliefs towards individual ethnicities, not all of them together. 3. Being cordial/friendly to individual members does not trump (pun intended) discriminatory attitudes towards the race as a whole. "I can't be a racist, I have a black friend!"

> way he did Mexico and Mexicans

Cite?

I've heard him speak about illegal Mexican immigrants, but that's not the same thing. I'm the first to admit I've not heard everything he's said, though. He's said a lot.

Or that they are of the acceptable echelon of immigrants. I wish I was joking.

I don't know about the others, but Mr Pai was born in Buffalo NY.

Edit: Nikki Haley isn't an immigrant either.

And Judge Gonzalo Curiel was born in Indiana. In the U.S., people who are of clear immigrant ancestry are often lumped in with first generation immigrants in these controversies. To pretend otherwise is to feign ignorance.

I'm a second generation Jew.

>To pretend otherwise is to feign ignorance.

I wasn't pretending otherwise. You're making a big assumption about my intent.

Edit: Trumps comments about the judge were overt racism.

I didn't mean to attack you specifically, but a lot of times these debates split fine hairs over truisms like "Mexican is not a race", "Islam is not a race", etc., as if bigotry is always well-informed on taxonomy and anthropology. So while pointing out conservative Indian-Americans such as Haley, Pai, Jindal, Ponnuru, were born in the U.S. is true, it's incidental to the main issues of how non-white populations are perceived/treated in this country.

>it's incidental to the main issues of how non-white populations are perceived/treated in this country.

I totally agree.

>Edit: Trumps comments about the judge were overt racism.

How were those comments any different than the comments about the white male judge in the Stanford swimmer sexual assault case? Or how about comments regarding the racial makeup of a jury? The fact is that humans do bring personal biases into the legal system. It doesn't seem like the political press is holding everyone to the same standards.

What constitutes "unusually high"? Also, by your tone, it sounds like it is a problem worth highlighting when it isn't.

I didn't get anything negative from GP. I think they were just wondering at the lack of comments from a likely over-represented HN Indian population about Trump nominating a decent number of Indian Americans... I had not noticed (yes, I'm a white guy) and now I have so I appreciated the comment.

Anywhere in American media really, not HN.

He did say it was worth highlighting, but certainly not that it was (or wasn't) a problem.

Why would it be a problem? I just thought it was interesting and am surprised no one has opined about it yet (afaict)

    Tidal, Jay Z’s Streaming Service, Sells a Stake to Sprint

Shame on him who thinks evil of it.

Shawn Corey Garter?