Ex-FCC Chair Ajit Pai is now a wireless lobbyist(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Ex-FCC Chair Ajit Pai is now a wireless lobbyist
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/ex-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-is-now-a-wireless-lobbyist-and-enemy-of-cable-companies/
64 comments
Interesting that he is now CEO of CTIA. His predecessor as FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, was once also CEO of CTIA. Wheeler did so well at that job that he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame.
Wheeler was also once President of NCTA, which is the main trade group for cable companies. He did so well there that he was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame, becoming the only person to be in both the cable and wireless halls of fame.
Wheeler was also once President of NCTA, which is the main trade group for cable companies. He did so well there that he was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame, becoming the only person to be in both the cable and wireless halls of fame.
Ajit Pai was also a lobbyist before he was the head of the FCC. That's the primary reason he was a disaster as commissioner.
This guy gutted net neutrality with a smile
Using fradulent "public" comment, no less. Used my and my wife's names.
That scale of fraud should be met with consequences of the same scale of fraud committed. Every impersonation is a case of fraud. Even when we asked for answers about the fake, repetitive comments, nothing came of it.
Bernie Sanders did an interview with Andrew Schultz and his podcast bros where he explained how lobbying works and that most people in government become lobbyist when they leave their position. Because they are already friendly with everyone they have an easy in to get the process started.
If you have any doubt in the ubiquity of corporate messaging since the 1920s...
_I have a fantastic offer for you, that you won't want to miss!_
_I have a fantastic offer for you, that you won't want to miss!_
Same bosses (corpos), different job title.
What's a "lobbyist–and"?
This latest meme punctuation trend sucks...
This latest meme punctuation trend sucks...
It's an em dash not a hyphen, and has been used that way for a very long time
Total meme punctuation, never saw one prior to recently.
I've been reading US english for about 60 years. This punctuation is not common outside of modern meme space.
A big part of what makes it suck, is it's lack of distinction from the hyphen. Apparently the big difference is that it's 0.3mm longer 8-/
I'd advocate a semicolon, or parenthesis, or anything else with spaces, because this punctuation sucks.
I've been reading US english for about 60 years. This punctuation is not common outside of modern meme space.
A big part of what makes it suck, is it's lack of distinction from the hyphen. Apparently the big difference is that it's 0.3mm longer 8-/
I'd advocate a semicolon, or parenthesis, or anything else with spaces, because this punctuation sucks.
The lack of visual distinction is a valid complaint, but to be fair em dashes have been around for a long time and were used by many classic authors.
It's just more commonly used in literary writing than in technical writing.
It's just more commonly used in literary writing than in technical writing.
I'm not making this a personal attack, but emdash is everywhere in older texts, and rarely seen in memes, outside of the recent discussion about why AI likes them so much. This almost seems like yelling at the clouds. Your preference is for a semicolon, yet you talk about lack of distinction from other punctuation?!?
> everywhere in older texts
A) This is just not the case, they've only become popular _because_ of the prevalence in LLM generated slop
B) Even if it were, it doesn't stop them from sucking
Semicolons have a space after them.
Parenthesis have spaces.
English (and most others) is a space delimited language (note the space demarcating that parenthetical statement from the rest of the sentence).
Along with the indistinguishable difference from a hyphen, this adds up to suck.
Let me quote from wikipedia:
In modern Wit all printed Trash, is Set off with num'rous Breaks⸺and Dashes—
This is probably why they mostly stopped appearing after the 1700s...
A) This is just not the case, they've only become popular _because_ of the prevalence in LLM generated slop
B) Even if it were, it doesn't stop them from sucking
Semicolons have a space after them.
Parenthesis have spaces.
English (and most others) is a space delimited language (note the space demarcating that parenthetical statement from the rest of the sentence).
Along with the indistinguishable difference from a hyphen, this adds up to suck.
Let me quote from wikipedia:
In modern Wit all printed Trash, is Set off with num'rous Breaks⸺and Dashes—
This is probably why they mostly stopped appearing after the 1700s...
he was a lobbyist as fcc chair too if you watch what he voted for
From the article:
> The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC.
How does this fit into your world model? He's fighting against the groups he was a shill for in his role at FCC.
> The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC.
How does this fit into your world model? He's fighting against the groups he was a shill for in his role at FCC.
He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him. He used his position as FCC commissioner to further cable industry goals. Now the wireless industry is paying him and he's lobbying for their goals.
Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
>Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
I think the parent comment is trying to dispell the not entirely unpopular perception that the revolving door involves some sort of quid quo pro. The typical telling is that while working in government they'll enact policies that are favorable to some company, with the understanding that the company will give him a cushy job as a "lobbyist" in exchange.
I think the parent comment is trying to dispell the not entirely unpopular perception that the revolving door involves some sort of quid quo pro. The typical telling is that while working in government they'll enact policies that are favorable to some company, with the understanding that the company will give him a cushy job as a "lobbyist" in exchange.
Which will happen, unless the group paying him accomplished their major goals, can accomplish them some other way, or someone else pays him more to do something else.
Contrast this with actual public service.
Contrast this with actual public service.
>Contrast this with actual public service.
See my other comment. If "public service" involves taking a job with mediocre pay, poor job security, and being barred from the field for 5 years, you'll only end up with rich partisan hacks and ideologues taking the post. All the competent people would be working at companies.
See my other comment. If "public service" involves taking a job with mediocre pay, poor job security, and being barred from the field for 5 years, you'll only end up with rich partisan hacks and ideologues taking the post. All the competent people would be working at companies.
This presumes a reality where money and power are the only selection criteria.
The idea of service is absent, and it is absent by design.
“We live in capitalism, and its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”
The idea of service is absent, and it is absent by design.
“We live in capitalism, and its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”
So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group?
Or is it just the group that's willing to pay the most (and I guess Ajit Pai is the most expensive lobbyist)?
Because the article quotes from groups like Spectrum for the Future, which is an industry group funded by cable companies like Comcast, which are the former bad guys.
I just want to understand a coherent world model in which you can confidently draw an opinion on a complex subject base on the actions of one guy that was in the news 10 years ago.
https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-fu...
Or is it just the group that's willing to pay the most (and I guess Ajit Pai is the most expensive lobbyist)?
Because the article quotes from groups like Spectrum for the Future, which is an industry group funded by cable companies like Comcast, which are the former bad guys.
I just want to understand a coherent world model in which you can confidently draw an opinion on a complex subject base on the actions of one guy that was in the news 10 years ago.
https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-fu...
>So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group?
There was no value judgment made in the previous comment about which group is worst. The word 'mercenary' is pretty self explanatory here. It's a bit contrived and tedious to view any discussion of the news as an opportunity to invent each speakers' worldview in your head, before they even speak about it, eh?
There was no value judgment made in the previous comment about which group is worst. The word 'mercenary' is pretty self explanatory here. It's a bit contrived and tedious to view any discussion of the news as an opportunity to invent each speakers' worldview in your head, before they even speak about it, eh?
If you are paying huge sums of money to effectively bribe the government to do what you want, you are the bad guy
Edit:
If you think politics is entirely about budgets and taxes and not human rights or a fundamental respect for democratic governance, then yes, they're close - in that sense, there's barely any difference between the Government of the UK and that of Hungary's Victor Orban, since they both provide universal healthcare to their people. However, there's obviously major differences between these governments that go well beyond the myopic lens of stated party policy positions.
Edit:
If you think politics is entirely about budgets and taxes and not human rights or a fundamental respect for democratic governance, then yes, they're close - in that sense, there's barely any difference between the Government of the UK and that of Hungary's Victor Orban, since they both provide universal healthcare to their people. However, there's obviously major differences between these governments that go well beyond the myopic lens of stated party policy positions.
> He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him.
You mean like every other employee on the planet?
You mean like every other employee on the planet?
Sometimes, people believe they have enough doing what they're doing that they don't need to compromise their ideals to make more money.
Some people are willing to compromise their own economic status to pursue what they feel are larger, more important goals.
Some people have ethical and/or moral lines they will not cross no matter how much money they are offered.
So no, not like every other employee on the planet.
Some people are willing to compromise their own economic status to pursue what they feel are larger, more important goals.
Some people have ethical and/or moral lines they will not cross no matter how much money they are offered.
So no, not like every other employee on the planet.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Often these types of articles have a take they want the reader to adopt. In the past it was simple, we need net neutrality to save the internet and Ajit Pai is an industry plant aimed to killing net neutrality. Cable companies love him.
You would think he'd be lobbying for cable companies, but a new boogie man has entered, the mobile industry. And now cable companies are mad at him. Oh and also consumer advocates, which apparently has the same incentives now apparently.
At least they admit as much later:
> The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC.
But this is kind of weird considering the "revolving door" policy and the implicit promise of future rewards
A few paragraphs in you get to some substance:
> "During the first Trump administration, the US was determined to lead the world in wireless innovation—and by 2021 it did," Pai wrote. "But that urgency and sense of purpose have diminished. With Mr. Trump's leadership, we can rediscover both."
> Pai's op-ed drew a quick rebuke from a group called Spectrum for the Future, which alleged that Pai mangled the facts.
> "Mr. Pai's arguments are wrong on the facts—and wrong on how to accelerate America's global wireless leadership," the vaguely named group said in a May 8 press release that accused Pai of "stunning hypocrisy." Spectrum for the Future said Pai is wrong about the existence of a spectrum shortage, wrong about how much money a spectrum auction could raise, and wrong about the cost of reallocating spectrum from the military to mobile companies.
I still have no idea whats true, but I will note the Spectrum for the Future is a lobbyist group (including tech companies like Airspan, Celona, Federated Wireless and comm providers like Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications). But at least they have a better name!
The article doesn't actually explain any of the issues or complexity, it just tries to say "Pai is aligned with [group], and [group] is bad. The article relies heavily on other lobbyist groups, that now include big cable which are the good guys now.
I have no idea what to think but my collective understanding of this issue somehow dropped after reading this article.
You would think he'd be lobbying for cable companies, but a new boogie man has entered, the mobile industry. And now cable companies are mad at him. Oh and also consumer advocates, which apparently has the same incentives now apparently.
At least they admit as much later:
> The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC.
But this is kind of weird considering the "revolving door" policy and the implicit promise of future rewards
A few paragraphs in you get to some substance:
> "During the first Trump administration, the US was determined to lead the world in wireless innovation—and by 2021 it did," Pai wrote. "But that urgency and sense of purpose have diminished. With Mr. Trump's leadership, we can rediscover both."
> Pai's op-ed drew a quick rebuke from a group called Spectrum for the Future, which alleged that Pai mangled the facts.
> "Mr. Pai's arguments are wrong on the facts—and wrong on how to accelerate America's global wireless leadership," the vaguely named group said in a May 8 press release that accused Pai of "stunning hypocrisy." Spectrum for the Future said Pai is wrong about the existence of a spectrum shortage, wrong about how much money a spectrum auction could raise, and wrong about the cost of reallocating spectrum from the military to mobile companies.
I still have no idea whats true, but I will note the Spectrum for the Future is a lobbyist group (including tech companies like Airspan, Celona, Federated Wireless and comm providers like Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications). But at least they have a better name!
The article doesn't actually explain any of the issues or complexity, it just tries to say "Pai is aligned with [group], and [group] is bad. The article relies heavily on other lobbyist groups, that now include big cable which are the good guys now.
I have no idea what to think but my collective understanding of this issue somehow dropped after reading this article.
Seems like Ajit was the belle of the ball and could pick winners of industry. Given the recent investments in 5G I could see the potential to go towards them.
this is kind of what Ars Technica does these days. :(
Yup. This is what we’ve had to endure on HN for the last decade. It’s been an incredibly frustrating site to comment on and frankly I want dang and tomhow to just prohibit political and quasi political articles. Other sites can be used for mindless shit-flinging.
Almost everything that has any impact in the world is political:
The clothes we wear, the food we eat, where and how our children are schooled, the devices and services we have available, consumer rights for said devices and services, etc.
The clothes we wear, the food we eat, where and how our children are schooled, the devices and services we have available, consumer rights for said devices and services, etc.
As valid of a point as it may be, it’s absolutely trite in this context. You can infer and separate degrees of politics from hackers-as-hackers. Piling on Trump has zero utility to hackers. Think about it for a moment.
We already tried the whole "not resisting fascist-adjacent people every living second" and it didn't turn out great for a lot of people. Think about it for a moment.
I think this article is pretty material. I work in RF tech and the regulatory side of the business is very important. But that's the key, poltical topics can be materially relevant to technical topics. There is a large gray area and I think the HN community does a nice job preventing actual abuse.
You're going to end up with 10 people talking back and forth with the same groupthink and nothing of real substance will ever get discussed.
What a nice hole to shove your head in to ignore the world around you.
What a nice hole to shove your head in to ignore the world around you.
don't blame the player, blame the game. our entire society is rife with misaligned incentives like this.
That said, i think there are much bigger problems these days unfortunately.
That said, i think there are much bigger problems these days unfortunately.
Yes and no IMO, as bribing has been legalized, the system has gotten rotten from the bottom all the way to the top. Thats the problem when the issue is systematic like this. Basically everyone is on the take because... well why not, its legal. However it has created incentives that in the long run has created a system where the money is expected and the corruption has taken hold.
The root cause is the corporate ruling class basically running the country. These misaligned incentives, from bribery to insurance companies running legalized scams all benefit the corporations.
The legal community is largely responsible by abdicating their responsibility as officers of the law and tolerating concepts like "corporate personhood" and "lobbying" (legislator bribery). If those two tings could be eradicated, so many societal problems would be solved.
The legal community is largely responsible by abdicating their responsibility as officers of the law and tolerating concepts like "corporate personhood" and "lobbying" (legislator bribery). If those two tings could be eradicated, so many societal problems would be solved.
[deleted]
Bullshit. Hate the players and the game.
Nobody is surprised because this is how government works now apparently.
Revolving door between regulators and private industry, continues
Well, yes. People who work in fields where pretty much all the employers are government or private industry and the government jobs are temporary are going to tend to go from private industry to government and then back to private industry.
What are ex political appointees supposed to do after being ousted? Working as a lobbyist seems like a perfect fit for his previous experience. The other contender would be working in a think tank or as a regulatory/compliance consultant, which are still suspiciously close to being a lobbyist. The former basically tries to lobby by putting out "whitepapers", and the latter basically greases a company's relationship with regulators.
He's already CEO of a trade group and he's a partner for a private equity group. If he needs more income, he can always consider driving for Uber or delivering pizzas.
It's his job as CEO of a trade group that the article is about.
> ...the latter basically greases a company's relationship with regulators
Its not just that. Its typical for lobbyist to go back into public service and influence policy on behalf of the companies they work for.
Think Dick Cheney + Halliburton and the Iraq War. Halliburton was guaranteed a great year, thanks to the former VP.
And business-friendly, anti-regulation regulators get regarded a but too handsomely at the expense of the US citizen that pays their salary. Example: Scott Gottlieb joining the board of directors at Pfizer after leading FDA. Don't forget that Pai worked for Verizon before joining FCC.
Its not just that. Its typical for lobbyist to go back into public service and influence policy on behalf of the companies they work for.
Think Dick Cheney + Halliburton and the Iraq War. Halliburton was guaranteed a great year, thanks to the former VP.
And business-friendly, anti-regulation regulators get regarded a but too handsomely at the expense of the US citizen that pays their salary. Example: Scott Gottlieb joining the board of directors at Pfizer after leading FDA. Don't forget that Pai worked for Verizon before joining FCC.
Yes, there's long been a revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, Monsanto and the USDA, etc. They revolve into government to set policy and reap graft and back into the corporate world to implement and profit from it. Glad people are starting to notice for some reason.
At the very least there should be an ethics committee looking into it, and possibly barring him from working in a related field for eg 5 years, to avoid revolving-doors
>At the very least there should be an ethics committee looking into it
What would the ethics committee be considering?
>possibly barring him from working in a related field for eg 5 years
So anyone who wants to be a political appointee either has to be a total outsider in the field they're supposed to be regulating, or take a 5 year pay cut? Given that political appointees tend to be partisan hacks anyways, this is only going to make that problem worse. It basically invites a repeat of Musk and DOGE.
What would the ethics committee be considering?
>possibly barring him from working in a related field for eg 5 years
So anyone who wants to be a political appointee either has to be a total outsider in the field they're supposed to be regulating, or take a 5 year pay cut? Given that political appointees tend to be partisan hacks anyways, this is only going to make that problem worse. It basically invites a repeat of Musk and DOGE.
Exactly, that's called ethics. In normal societies (eg Europe) this is the norm...
FWIW he left the FCC about 4.5 years ago
It's like any other specialized industry. Your skills are not always transferable and it makes the job pool quite narrow, and geographic.