Tony Romm

Apparently, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his scheduled appearance at a major upcoming tech industry trade show after receiving death threats. It’s the second known incident in which Chairman Pai’s safety may have been at risk, after a bomb threat abruptly forced the chairman to halt his controversial vote to scrap net neutrality rules in December 2017.

The fiercest advocates for network neutrality are readying a new war in the nation’s capital, hoping to restore the rules that the Trump administration just eliminated — and galvanize a new generation of younger, web-savvy voters in the process. Not even a month after the Federal Communications Commission voted to scrap its requirement that internet providers treat all web traffic equally, an armada of tech startups, consumer activists and state attorneys general are preparing to take the agency to court.

In the hours after the Trump administration scrapped rules that required internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, a handful of states mobilized in a bid to reverse the decision by the Federal Communications Commission in court — or perhaps write their own new regulations as a replacement. To start, a coalition of state attorneys general, led by New York, pledged on Dec 14 that they would sue the FCC to stop its rollback from taking place.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the US government’s existing network neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Chairman Pai said that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet.

President Donald Trump appeared to stress that he had not intervened in AT&T’s bid to buy Time Warner — nor did he seek to require that the companies sell CNN in order to obtain the US government’s approval of the deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he believes technology companies that displayed Kremlin-linked ads during the 2016 election could help the United States “retaliate” against Russia. “What we ought to do with regard to the Russians is retaliate, seriously retaliate against the Russians,” Sen McConnell told MSNBC’s Hugh Hewitt.

For the moment, the fate of the Sinclair-Tribune deal rests in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission as well as the nation’s antitrust regulators. As with any merger of this size, the government has the ability to review and block the merger, permit it to proceed as proposed, or require Sinclair and Tribune to make certain changes in order for them to proceed.

Already, though, Sinclair has benefited greatly from the Federal Communications Commission: Under its Republican chairman, Ajit Pai, the agency has relaxed media ownership rules, beginning with a change in the way some stations are counted toward a company’s national footprint. That deregulatory move made Sinclair’s bid for Tribune fathomable, analysts have said. During the 2016 election, Sinclair stations appeared to have great access to the presidential candidate. While the company claimed it was not playing favorites, President Trump’s closest aide, Jared Kushner, said in December that Sinclair had actually struck a deal with Trump’s campaign with respect to its coverage. (Sinclair said the deal never happened.) Months later, Sinclair snapped up Boris Epsteyn, one of Trump’s spokespeople in the White House, as a chief political analyst.

A Q&A with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. Pai and Tony Romm discussed the future of network neutrality, the role of the FCC in “boring” things like the country’s infrastructure, and the agency's role overseeing telecom giants as they gobble each other up.

Asked, "What happens if we have millions and millions of Americans who file comments to the agency opposing the ideas [on net neutrality] that you’ve put forward?" Chairman Pai said, "Well, look, that’s part of the process. I wanted to make sure that we had a chance for the public to have its say. After that’s over, after that period is over, the agency takes stock of what’s in the record. Under the law, as enunciated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals here, we have to have what’s called substantial evidence. We have to find in the record sufficient facts to justify what course of action we are going to take. There’s no numerical threshold that the courts have applied. They don’t say, “Okay, 51 percent say yes and 49 percent say no, then the decision is clear," or any proportion greater than that. They’ve said substantial evidence is the standard, so that’s the legal standard we’re going to apply going forward."

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai stressed the importance that net neutrality protections come in the form of “light-touch regulation.” And his public notice leaves it up for tech and telecom companies to debate exactly how that might look. [To hell with broadband subscribers’ opinions.]

• What does “light touch” really mean? In short, “light touch” net neutrality could take a lot of forms, but here’s one of them: There’s a world in which the FCC doesn’t have any explicit, preemptive net neutrality rules on its books at all.
• What Pai really thinks about online fast lanes: “These don’t exist, and prior to 2015, they didn’t exist ... so we’re talking about something that’s entirely hypothetical,” he said of such deals. That means, to Chairman Pai, maybe the FCC doesn’t need to ban them outright.
• How Chairman Pai plans to approach public comments: What happens if a majority still thrashes Chairman Pai and his plan to roll back the Obama administration’s work? “Well, look, that’s part of the process. ... After that [public comment period] is over, the agency takes stock of what’s in the record.” While he said the FCC must have “substantial evidence” justifying its work, he said “there’s no numerical threshold the courts have applied” to evaluate if regulators act appropriately. And by the way, he stopped short of saying consumers’ fears are unfounded. Asked if public-interest groups had been disingenuous, he replied: “The parade of horribles trotted out have no resonance in fact.”

President Donald Trump’s first weeks in office have galvanized tech engineers, who vigorously protested the president — and in some cases, turned their fire on executives like Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, to get them to strike more forcefully at the White House. It isn’t all opposition, however.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and other major tech companies that long have tried to overhaul the US tax code have found a president who’s willing to grant them a few wishes. President Trump’s tax plan is but a page — and it’s already politically imperiled in Congress — but it still backed a one-time tax break for businesses that bring back billions of dollars from overseas. So too have the nation’s tech titans gained a few allies in government. Much is still on the horizon. President Trump has pledged an infrastructure package, for example, that could be valued by as much as $1 trillion. Other work around issues like self-driving cars is well underway. “I think this is a marathon, not a sprint,” said Michael Beckerman, the president of the Internet Association. “A first 100 days is just 100 days, and you have years to go. And a lot of the things that were on the agenda…. are not directly related to our industry. I think the question of success will be later on.”