That said, i think there are much bigger problems these days unfortunately.
> 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.
Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
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...
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?
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.
Contrast this with actual public service.
You mean like every other employee on the planet?
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’re 30 years late. Stick a fork in “journalism”.
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.
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.
londons_explore•1h ago