FCC chairman Ajit Pai is under investigation over $3.9 billion media deal

The man who spearheaded the death of net neutrality may have previously been involved in a shady business deal.

Killing net neutrality may have been an unpopular move, and sure, the commenting period leading up to the FCC's vote was a farce, but the process that was spearheaded by FCC chairman Ajit Pai was entirely legal. What may have not been, however, is a mega media deal that Pai made possible last year.

According to a report in The New York Times, Ajit Pai and the FCC approved a set of rules last to allow television broadcasters to increase the number of stations they own. Weeks after the rules were approved, Sinclair Broadcasting announced a $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media

The deal was made possible by the new set of rules, which subsequently raised some eyebrows. Notably, the FCC's inspector general is reportedly investigating if Pai and his aides abused their position by pushing for the rule changes that would make the deal possible, and timing them to benefit Sinclair.

Link

Who remembers those cringe-worthy videos of Ajit Pai mocking NN supporters? Well it looks like he might have been involved in a shady dealing and this could be his downfall. One can only hope such a scumbag will get his come-uppings and have to answer for his actions.

a reply to: Incandescent

If he is guilty, FRY his ass!!!!

a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...







YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Care to explain what part of my post was not factual or not truthful?

I linked an article and gave my own opinion on it...

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...
Unlike your post...

YouSir

As if it were from the mouth of Mr. Pai himself.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...
Unlike your post...

YouSir

Go take a rest you hobby-lobbyist, you need some sleep, or medications...

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...
Unlike your post...

YouSir

As if it were from the mouth of Mr. Pai himself.

Ummm...oh...such a slam...I'm wounded to the core...

I hardly think I'll recover from that affront...




YouSir

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...
Unlike your post...

YouSir

Go take a rest you hobby-lobbyist, you need some sleep, or medications...

Ummm...ouch...another kick to the groin...and all the way from Germany...

You Sir are such a dualist...why...I can hardly escape your wit...




YouSir

a reply to: Incandescent

Oh he's guilty.

a reply to: Incandescent

So let me ask this question: If, every time a regulation or rule or law is changed, and then weeks later, a deal happens that takes advantage of the change, should the person responsible for the change be investigated every time?

I can't access the link on the firewall that I'm sitting behind, so maybe a little more info could explain why there is concern about a conspiracy behind the rule changes? From what you quoted, there is literally nothing to be concerned about, except that I'm tired of so few companies owning so many media outlets. But that's not criminal.

Like everyone associated with trump, just another lowlife scumbag trying to make a buck off the American people.

"Birds of a feather flock together".

K~

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...

YouSir

Apparently you don't watch much on the internet. A LOT of the time, internet speeds at various sources like Netflix and Youtube and others are crap! If I want to watch a movie uninterrupted and without dropping down to crappy resolutions, I have to do it at certain times and that's usually late at night. It's not my internet because my speeds have not changed. I often test it when I'm having these issues to make sure.

YouSir are a denier

To the stockades!

what a pos

a reply to: Incandescent

This would be Shocking news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Said no one that didn't have their head buried in the sand and coming out of the other side of the world.


I dare say he is at Hillary POS level.

a reply to: YouSir

The internet is a far different place than what it used to be from back when it first came out.

The thing about changing things on computers is that it's interactive, consistently engaging you, little details might change here and there, but you won't notice them after about 5 minutes of use. Over time the change will look almost nothing like the original. Just go search how google or yahoo used to look, or even ATS.
NN will change things over time and you won't notice a thing, until one day you start to realize you can't even read news paper articles online, or watch youtube videos without ten ads in the middle of them... o wait that already happened, so the question is, what's next?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Incandescent

So let me ask this question: If, every time a regulation or rule or law is changed, and then weeks later, a deal happens that takes advantage of the change, should the person responsible for the change be investigated every time?

I can't access the link on the firewall that I'm sitting behind, so maybe a little more info could explain why there is concern about a conspiracy behind the rule changes? From what you quoted, there is literally nothing to be concerned about, except that I'm tired of so few companies owning so many media outlets. But that's not criminal.

I own a company. I have 51% shares in the company's stock.If my stock is consistently rising day after day and tomorrow at 3pm sharp, I sell all of my stock. Soon after, my company's stock crashes.

Should I be investigated? What would it take for me to be investigated?


I own a building. Tomorrow I upgrade my insurance that makes my building worth 1000X more if something bad happens. The following month, right after the grace period, my building burns to the ground.

Should I be investigated? What would it take for me to be investigated?


I have a best friend who owns a multi million dollar business. Tomorrow he's scheduled to make an announcement on the companies profits. Today, I decide to go out and buy 3 billion dollars worth of stock in that company. Tomorrow when the information comes out, I make 50 billion.

Should I be investigated? What would it take for me to be investigated?


I head a company who regulates and decides the rules for all other companies. I have to make the choice where companies can be more of a monopoly than they currently are, or not. I change the rules so that the restrictions are taken away for all companies across the board. A week later, something that takes many months and years of discussion and planning suddenly takes place and that company makes billions off of it.

Should I be investigated? What would it take for me to be investigated?

So where are the checks and balances for the FCC? Who is allowed to investigate them? What does it take to investigate them? Why is it an issue when they do get investigated for something that appears shady?

Is it bad to think that people in very high positions making choices that affect the country for good or bad, give or take power from huge corporations, could be corrupt?

Should we just assume that this is a perfect world and NO human being with that much power would be corrupt for the sake of millions or billions of dollars?

Do you honestly think that his rules have not, could not and would not allow him to benefit from them? People in that position should be investigated EVERY DAY. It should never stop. Same with anyone who has that kind of power.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Incandescent


Ummm...I thought the end of net neutrality was going to be the end of the internet...?

Yet...here we are...conversing on that very same platform...

Not only that...we have the presumption of innocence in this country...not the labeling of guilt before the fact...

Your opinions notwithstanding..."reportedly investigating"...does not a crime make...

Nor does it even qualify as truth or fact...or even as newsworthy...


I allege...that you are biased as per this story...which is supported by your statements...
Therefore my allegations are factual and truthful...

YouSir

Apparently you don't watch much on the internet. A LOT of the time, internet speeds at various sources like Netflix and Youtube and others are crap! If I want to watch a movie uninterrupted and without dropping down to crappy resolutions, I have to do it at certain times and that's usually late at night. It's not my internet because my speeds have not changed. I often test it when I'm having these issues to make sure.

YouSir are a denier

Ummm...actually...I use a boatload of streaming video...Netflix...Amazon video...Hulu...Crackle...I also game frequently online...

That being said...there's been no more or less latency issues than before...when we had net neutrality...

Frankly...I don't see any more of an issue than I did previously...










YouSir

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: YouSir

The internet is a far different place than what it used to be from back when it first came out.

The thing about changing things on computers is that it's interactive, consistently engaging you, little details might change here and there, but you won't notice them after about 5 minutes of use. Over time the change will look almost nothing like the original. Just go search how google or yahoo used to look, or even ATS.
NN will change things over time and you won't notice a thing, until one day you start to realize you can't even read news paper articles online, or watch youtube videos without ten ads in the middle of them... o wait that already happened, so the question is, what's next?

Ummm...I use very good ad-blockers...(ATS whitelisted)...I also don't patronize sites that require a login...or whiteout their pages if you block their ads...the only exception being HULU...

I don't do pay to play beyond my streaming video...

Obviously sites change over time in order to remain relevant...I've seen quite a few here on ATS since March 2010 when I joined...and long before that while I lurked...I've seen various policies come and go...
I've also had an AOL account since 1995...things change...Just look at FireFox whose last change leaves a lot to be desired...as it screwed up the bookmarks folders...(I tend to bookmark frequently)...

I've also dabbled in digital design and created websites...although I'm sure I'd have to brush up on my skills if I were to implement them today...

This isn't my first rodeo...













YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

OK, so you're wise to the internet. Not everyone is, or not everyone really cares.
I use my 'main computer' for basically just gaming. I wipe it clean every 6 months, everything else that requires a log in or banking is on my lap top.
But the average user doesn't really take those steps.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Here's the problem: Investigations are fine, but they should be backed up with a relatively decent amount of evidence of possible wrongdoing. Like I said, I can't access the story in the OP right now, so if there is an indication of this evidence, I haven't seen it.

But see, even if an investigation is warranted, we should not immediately assume guilt, which is what many people in this thread are doing, all because they're butt-hurt over the Net Neutrality ruling.

The 'appearance of shadiness' should not be enough for thinking people to scream...well, let's look a few comments up from yours:

originally posted by: Lysergic
To the stockades!

what a pos

Yet, here we are, people acting like little children without any evidence of wrongdoing, just something that some people think "appears shady."

Yes, when warranted, investigations should occur, but as we've been privy to over the past few years, investigations can be misused, abused, and botched, and this is something that we need to keep in mind. But the proclamation that there is an investigation should not, in the least, make people assume guilt immediately--that is willful ignorance.

Of course people in power often gain from decisions that they make, but that doesn't absolve them from the job of making those decisions. If he's found to have done it with ill intent in mind, then he should go down, but from what is cited in the OP, I see nothing that warrants a criminal investigation at this point.