‘Proven to Work’: FCC Chair Explains Why Net Neutrality Needs to Be Reversed

Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai has been under fire after he announced that Obama-era rules for net neutrality would be reversed. He joined Glenn today to explain what undoing the regulation means for the internet.

“All we are proposing to do is to go back to President Clinton’s light touch, market-based framework that was in place from 1996 to 2015,” Pai said. “It’s a regulatory system that has been proven to work; that’s why we have the internet economy that is the envy of the world.”

Here are some of the topics he covered with Glenn (listen above):

  • The protesters who harassed his family over Thanksgiving weekend
  • The FCC’s role in online speech
  • The real effects of repealing net neutrality regulations

Let us know your thoughts on net neutrality in the comment section below.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I've dawn broadcast for 40-some years. And I think this is the only time I've ever liked the FCC chairman. Ajit Pai. Welcome to the program, Ajit, how are you?

AJIT: Pretty good. Thank you for having me on. And for the kind words.

GLENN: Well, you didn't have a high bar. I do not like regulation at all. And that's what the FCC has -- has done. And -- and they have gotten stronger and stronger, and I worry about the internet. And then you come in. And you are now having a -- a real problem because people are -- you're going to -- you're going to repeal net neutrality. And people are coming out and -- I'm sorry for what your family went through. Picketing your house on Thanksgiving weekend.

AJIT: It's outrageous. And, you know, some of the online threats have been even more outrageous. And I think for anybody in public office. And any publicly-exposed position, you should not be threatened. Your family should not be threatened with violence or the like, simply because of the position you hold. And, you know, just simply steels my resolve to keep doing what I think is the right thing to do, and to also keep my family safe.

GLENN: So, Ajit, first of all, I'm sorry for this, but this is what's happening all over the country to anybody. When people disagree with somebody, we -- you know, we just -- all of a sudden, we think it's okay to harass them or terrorize them or offer death threats or whatever online.

Does the FCC have any place in regulating that kind of speech, online or anywhere else?

AJIT: We don't. Obviously, if it threatens violence or the like, we can work with law enforcement authorities. By and large, we have a hands-off rule. We don't regulate the content that goes over the internet.

What I will say is I have tried to speak out about the fact that we need to have a more civil fact-focused discourse in this country. It's one thing to disagree on policy. But if you go out there peddling misinformation, like democracy is threatened, the Internet is about to be broken, and here is the guy who is doing it. Here's his phone number. Here's where he lives. Here's his family. You shouldn't be surprised when people get alarmed and start to take outrageous actions. And so I would hope that we try to focus on the facts, as passionate as people are about this issue.

GLENN: So they are claiming that this is the end of democracy on the internet because you are going to repeal something that Obama put in, net neutrality.

AJIT: And that's the great irony about this. All we are proposing to do is to go back to President Clinton's light-touch, market-based framework that was place from 1996 to 2015. It's a regulatory system that has been proven to work. That's why we have the internet economy that's the envy of the world. And so all of these apocalyptic predictions are simply ridiculous, given the fact that we've lived under these exact same rules for two decades, and the world didn't end.

To the contrary, it thrived, especially for conservatives who have historically been marginalized when it comes to having the ability to express themselves.

STU: It's amazing that they would think that the era of 1996 to 2015 was a bad one for the internet. It changed our world completely.

AJIT: It's incredible. All these people suggesting that we were living in some digital dystopia before 2015, and that's why the government had to seize control of the internet, are completely misinterpreting history. And I think are object oblivious to the fact that these regulations do have costs. And going forward, we want to make sure that we have rules that accurately reflect the market. And promote free speech and expression online as well.

GLENN: So I talked to Ray Kurzweil who is the head of the Singularity University and consultant for Google and everybody else. And we talked about this at one point, kind of half-jokingly, about, you know, if Google can monitor all of the stuff and see what people are searching for, if somebody is searching for a better way to make a Google, why would Google ever allow them to do that? Are you concerned at all about the rise of these gigantic corporations that are bigger than some countries in their power, like Google. Google pretty much wrote the net neutrality bill.

AJIT: This is a growing concern, I think, in some halls in Washington and around the country. And part of the argument I made earlier this week is that you should practice what you preach. If you come to the FCC saying we need these heavy-handed regulations to be applied to one part of the internet economy, but, oh, don't regulate me, you should be consistent in how you operate your business. And that's part of the reason why I've said we need to have a level playing field. Everyone should play by the same rules, and the government certainly shouldn't be picking winners and losers and dispensing regulatory favors to those companies or parts of the industry that it favors at any given point in time.

GLENN: So how does net neutrality benefit a company like Google and hurt the small way?

AJIT: Well, I think the primary way is it's essentially saying, if you're an online content provider, you get rules of the road that will favor you. You essentially have the ability to pursue your business model without regulation. But the companies that run the networks that have to invest in those networks, aren't free to essentially build other networks and manage them appropriately.

And so that's pretty useful, to companies that are sending and receiving a lot of traffic on the internet. My simple point is, let's let the market decide how this works, instead of having the government micromanage it and pick winners and losers.

STU: Ajit, we're talking to Ajit Pai from the FCC.

And I know that a lot of -- even some conservatives that I talk to, see net neutrality as something that's positive because they -- they look at the way they use the internet. They stream Netflix. And Netflix is awesome. Everybody loves Netflix. It's great programming. And I don't want some company telling me that I can't get the speeds I need, so I get buffering and everything else. We need to stop that. What do you tell those people?

AJIT: I tell them two things. First of all, I understand where they're coming from. I love Netflix as well and stream a video all the time.

The problem is two-fold. Number one, the companies that are building the networks, have to be able to have a wide enough road, so to speak, to carry all of this bandwidth. And that road, expanding it, maintaining it, costs a lot of money.

And so the question is, should we allow commercial arrangements where the companies that are occupying a lot of space on the road will share in the cost much maintaining that road? And that's one of the things that the market has been able to traditionally sort out.

My point is that we shouldn't have the government dictating up front that, look, we're going to set the rules of the road, and prefer one part of the industry over the other.

GLENN: Can you explain, because people say by repealing this, it's going to make it harder for poor Americans to afford the internet, which is usually the opposite of what happens when government, you know, doesn't get involved. When government doesn't get involved, the prices go down because there's competition. When the government starts regulating, the prices usually start to go up. Can you help solve this?

AJIT: Absolutely. And this is one of the classic bits of misinformation out there.

These regulations, these heavy-handed regulations, on some of these network operators, have actually led them to reduce their investments in building these high-speed networks, especially in rural and low-income areas. Building these networks is hard. It costs a lot of money, takes a lot of time.

And what I've heard for myself -- firsthand, when I've gone to places like Spencer, Iowa, and Parsons, Kansas, and Reno, Nevada, is that some of these smaller companies, the very companies that are necessary to promote more competition and to reach rural and low-income consumers, they're the ones who are suffering under these regulations.

They've told us on the record that they're holding back on investment, or they can't even raise capital in the first place because companies say there's not going to be return on the investment because of these rules. So the argument I've made is that poorer consumers in particular are worse off because these regulations are standing in the way of them getting internet access or getting more competition.

STU: I think Ajit, there's a strong ideological argument to me that there's no human right, there's no constitutional right to Netflix. That is not what the government should be involved in when it comes to commerce.

But people -- you know, they obviously like it. They don't want these things to happen. And when you have a situation where a company could, in theory, strangle a particular site's bandwidth, people get panicked.

However, is it a real world thing? My understanding is it basically never happens. And if it does, the result after is actually a positive one.

GLENN: Exactly. And this is part of the reason why going back to your earlier question about Netflix, this is exactly the reason why we should let the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, figure out whether or not any of these arrangements are any competitive.

That phenomena you're just describing doesn't happen in the marketplace today, and if it did, one could imagine that it could be pro-competitive or anti-competitive.

My point is simply the FCC shouldn't preemptively say for all of the 4,000-sum Internet providers and for the rest of time, we know what the market is going to be, and we're going to forbid this or that business practice.

Let's let the anticompetitive authorities -- the competition authorities at the Federal Trade Commission, what could be anticompetitive on a case-by-case basis. That's a much better way of singling out the bad apples, I think.

GLENN: Talking to the chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, about net neutrality.

Ajit, do you look at all the regulations of FDR and see how the big -- for instance, big three automakers put automakers like, you know, Auburn out of business, when they started regulating. I mean, a lot of this stuff as we're growing into a new area of technology, a lot of this stuff we can learn from the past.

Are you examining any of that?

AJIT: Oh, absolutely. In fact, the net neutrality regulations that the previous FCC adopted in 2015, were directly modeled on the rules developed in the Roosevelt administration to handle Ma Bell, the telephone monopoly.

And the argument I've made is counterintuitive to a lot of people, but I think you might appreciate it, which is that these heavy-handed rules from the 1930s, that were designed for monopolies actually benefit some of the bigger companies.

They're the ones who have the lawyers and the accountants and the lobbyists to comply with these regulations. The smaller companies don't. And so ironically enough, these heavy-handed rules that were designed for a monopoly, will end up leading the marketplace toward a monopoly. And that's the last thing we want to see. We want to see more competition, more smaller providers entering the marketplace. And heavy-handed rules are not the way to get us there.

GLENN: Seeing that you are the chairman of the FCC and so much of freedom of speech in some ways, falls under your purview, are you concerned about the direction that, you know, our colleges or our universities, even our media and our politicians, seem to be moving in, where there doesn't seem to be any tolerance for different kinds of opinions.

AJIT: Absolutely. And I just gave a speech about this yesterday, in fact, where I said, there seems to be less of a tolerance for other points of view, and that social media, ironically enough, given the name, seems to be accentuating that problem.

And I'm very disturbed about the future of free speech and expression in this country. I think the harbinger is certainly on college campuses, where you see people not only not wanting to listen to other points of view, they actively want to shut down the expression of other parts of view.

And this is the generation -- these are the people that are going to have to carry the torch for this core constitutional freedom in the years to come. And I've long said that the First Amendment is great. It's nice to have that on the parchment of the Constitution, but it also requires a culture that is willing to defend this principle that we are a pluralistic nation, that other points of view, even if repugnant to you, should be allowed to be expressed. And I do worry that our culture is becoming less and less tolerant of other points of view. And eventually it will have a serious impact, if it's not corrected.

GLENN: Ajit Pai, thank you so much. I appreciate it and appreciate your time. Chairman of the FCC.

Did the FBI just get away with the BIGGEST armed robbery in US history?

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In 2021, an armed group broke into a U.S. Private Vaults store in Beverly Hills and stole $86 million worth of valuables — the largest armed robbery in U.S. history. That "armed group" was the FBI. Now, it appears that the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles "misled" the judge who signed the warrant for the seizure and still haven't returned the stolen goods to the 700 customers affected, according to newly disclosed court filings.

The details of the government’s alleged deception have come to light in a class-action lawsuit by U.S. Private Vaults customers who say the raid violated their rights, the Los Angeles Times reported. The FBI and U.S. attorney’s office denied misleading the judge, and a spokesperson claimed the warrants were lawfully executed.

On the radio program, Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguiere reviewed some of the shocking story's details and discussed why incidents like this may become more common.

"None of the customers have been charged with any crimes. Not a single customer, out of the 700, not a single customer has been charged with a crime, but they can't get their stuff back," Glenn noted. "And this is going to happen more and more."

"It's incomprehensible that this stuff goes on in the United States of America," Stu said. "If you were to tell me this happened, you know, in Russia, I'd expect it. The fact that the United States government is claiming and just taking stuff from citizens all around the country with no crime, many times without even being charged, let alone ... conviction."

"Listen to this," Glenn continued. "The lawsuit also claims that some of the box holders who came forward to reclaim their seized property were then subjected to another investigation. If you went to the FBI and said, 'I want my stuff back,' the FBI examined their bank accounts, their DMV records, their tax return, and any criminal history checks."

However, box holders who decided to forfeit their property were also suspected of trying to "avoid becoming an FBI target," Glenn noted.

"So, you're guilty if you walk away and you're guilty if you ask," Stu added.

"This is America, gang," Glenn said. "It doesn't seem like it because it's not a constitutional America. But this is the America we now live in, and it is important that you wake up and stand up. ... God's people have got to start standing up, or we'll lose freedom. The world's freedom will be on our heads."

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck: One TERRIFYING thing is clear no matter who caused the Nord Stream pipeline leaks

Photo by Danish Defence/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Evidence strongly suggests that the Nord Stream pipeline leaks were the result of sabotage, and U.S. and European officials have been working to discover who could be behind the explosions that damaged the natural gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

Was it Russia? Ukraine? Germany? But no matter who carried this out, it has put the entire world in grave danger, because if this is indeed an attack, it means that non-military key infrastructure outside Ukraine is now on the "target menu," warned Glenn Beck on the radio program.

"It is so important for you to understand, this is now a non-military key infrastructure that has been destroyed," Glenn explained. "If Russia thinks we did it, they've already said, 'Nukes are now on the table.' That gives us a green light to use nukes," he added.

"This is non-military key infrastructure outside of the borders of Ukraine. To date, as far as we know, combat targets were either in Ukraine, or were military targets hit inside of Russia by Ukrainian Air Force or special forces. But the target menu now includes key civilian infrastructure: electricity, water utilities, energy production. That makes Russia more dangerous than ever. And that would be true no matter who carried out the attack," Glenn stated.

Now, the Russians are saying the Unted States did it, and the U.S. is saying it was Russia. But no matter who carried out the attack, "We are facing a Cuban Missile Crisis," said Glenn.

"This could end up being the biggest story of our lifetime and ... if it isn't played calmly by every side, this could be World War III," he continued. "Russia has already said that this gives them the right to use nuclear weapons as soon as they find out for sure who did it. That would be catastrophic, absolutely catastrophic."

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The White House can try to spin inflation all day long (and it's trying very hard). But you feel the effects of President Joe Biden’s disastrous leadership every time you go to the grocery store or fill up your car. The American economy is on the brink of disaster after less than two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. And they’ve got plenty more destruction in the works.

The bottom line is they WANT you to get used to a lower living standard. So, what do you do? How do you prepare? What will food and fuel cost in the months ahead? What would the next Great Depression look like? How are you going to feel the effects of ESG and the Left’s war on oil?

On Wednesday night's "Glenn TV," Glenn Beck brings in a panel of economic experts to answer those questions. He’s joined by Carol Roth, former Wall Street investment banker and author of “The War on Small Business,” and Jim Iuorio, a small business owner, stockbroker, and managing director of TJM Institutional Services. While both forecast the worst-case scenario for average Americans, they also offer a glimmer of hope to get us out of this mess.

Watch the full episode below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The FBI recently sent more than a dozen armed agents to the home of well-known pro-life activist Mark Houck to arrest him for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances or FACE Act. Now the father of seven faces up to 11 years in prison over claims that he blocked a man from entering an abortion clinic and shoved him when he wouldn't stop verbally harassing Mark's 12-year-old son. Now, if that doesn't sound insane enough, this all happened after local authorities dropped the case. So, what's the full story here?

Attorney Peter Breen joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to tell the family's side of the story, including how the case was already "won" three years ago, and how, after receiving a target letter from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mark's legal team agreed to cooperate fully, only to hear nothing back until the day the FBI showed up on Mark's doorstep.

Breen also explained how the FBI has tried to downplay "abuse of power" claims, accusing Mark's wife of making "inaccurate claims" about the terrifying experience.

"Ryan-Marie, who is Mark's wife, she thought she saw 25 [FBI agents.] The FBI came back and said it wasn't 25, it was no more than 15 or 20 heavily armed federal agents. And she had called them a 'SWAT team' because she's a lay person. I don't know the difference between a SWAT team and a bunch of heavily armed, armored, and shield-bearing federal agents," Breen said.

According to Fox News, a senior FBI source said:

There may have been 15-20 agents at the scene, but denied 25 were there. The agents who came to the door had guns out and at the ready, according to this FBI source, but the guns were never pointed at Houck or his family and were lowered or holstered as soon as Houck was taken into custody. Houck was handcuffed with a belly chain.

"So, yeah, they had guns drawn and pointed at Mark in front of his wife and their children. And that whole show of force was done against a man who was not a drug lord, not a mafia boss, but instead, a law-abiding pillar of the community whose attorney said, 'we'll bring him in if you decide to charge, even though you have no case.'"

Breen went on to assert that he believes Congress "needs to" hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable for the arrest. "I can't imagine that those 20 federal agents were excited about being called out to a peaceful man's home, guns drawn," he said.

In the video clip below, Breen goes on the explain what he believes should happen next, and why Houck's arrest "should frighten all of us." Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.