FCC Refuses To Release FOIA Documents Pertaining To Its Stupid Verizon 'Collusion' Joke
from the transparency! dept
You might recall that right before the FCC voted to kill net neutrality at Verizon's behest, the agency thought it would be a hoot to joke about the agency's "collusion" with Verizon at a telecom industry gala. The lame joke was a tone-deaf attempt to mock very legitimate concerns that Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, is far too close to the industry he's supposed to be regulating. The FCC even went so far as to include a little video featuring Verizon executives, who chortled about their plans to install Pai as a "puppet" leader at the agency. Hilarious.
While the audience of policy wonks and lobbyists giggled, the whole thing was tone deaf and idiotic from stem to stern. Especially given the fact that Pai's policies have been nothing short of a Verizon wish list, whether that involves protecting Verizon's monopoly over business data services (BDS), or the efforts to undermine any attempts to hold Verizon accountable for repeated privacy violations. Much like the other lame video Pai circulated at the time to make light of consumer outrage, it only served to highlight how viciously out of touch this FCC is with the public it's supposed to be looking out for.
Gizmodo recently filed a FOIA request to obtain any communications between the FCC and Verizon regarding the creation of the video, arguing the records were well within the public interest given concerns over Pai's cozy relationship with the companies he's supposed to be holding accountable. But Gizmodo says the FCC refused the request under Exemption 5 of the FOIA (Deliberative Process Privilege). While the request revealed around a dozen pages of e-mails between the FCC and Verizon, the FCC refuses to release them, arguing they could harm the ability of the agency to do its job (read: kiss Verizon's ass):
"At its own discretion, the Federal Communications Commission has chosen to block the release of records related to a video produced last year in which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and a Verizon executive joke about installing a “Verizon puppet” as head of the FCC. In a letter to Gizmodo last week, the agency said it was withholding the records from the public in order to prevent harm to the agency—an excuse experts say is a flagrant attempt to skirt federal transparency law.
Needless to say, FOIA experts don't believe a tone deaf joke qualifies for the exemption:
"To argue that this video amounts to the same kind of deliberative process that goes on behind the scenes in terms of an agency deciding an official policy on a topic, or what actions it’s going to take, is absurd,” Marshall said. “The deliberative process is frequently used to withhold embarrassing information or inconvenient information. I have no idea how a draft of a skit that was supposed to be funny would impair the FCC’s decision-making process on anything, except on, I guess, maybe future skits."
In short the FCC was cocky enough to think that mocking Verizon collusion concerns was somehow a good idea, yet now doesn't want anybody seeing its communications with Verizon executives. The agency pretty clearly is worried the e-mails could be embarrassing or potentially harm the agency's chances against the wall of lawsuits headed its direction for ignoring the public interest.
Remember that Ajit Pai has routinely crowed about how "transparent" his FCC would be. Yet just one year in, Pai's agency is already facing numerous lawsuits for refusing to disclose conversations with ISP lobbyists about the plan to kill net neutrality, refusing to disclose net neutrality complaints filed with the agency, refusing to be transparent about a DDoS attack the FCC apparently concocted to downplay the "John Oliver effect," and for ignoring FOIA requests related to its failure to police website comment fraud during the public comment period (they're also blocking a law enforcement investigation into that same issue).
In short, whatever Pai's private definitions of both "transparency" and "joke" are, you sure as hell won't find them in the dictionary.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, b5, deliberative process, fcc, jokes, transparency
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Marshall is simply not nearly cynical enough to look at it the right way: this was the FCC's official policy, framed in a humorous fashion, and therefore the making of the skit is legitimate deliberation.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It really sucks when you get what you give doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Both the FCC and TD willfully mocks others they disagree with. I notice that a lot of fanboi's around here seem to think it's okay for them to mock but not others.
You guys sure to spend a lot of time defending an organization that is screwing you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're also spending a lot effort trying to draw a false equivalence between a website you choose to visit without hinderance every day, and the government organisation that controls your access to it. Even you can see a slight difference between these things?
"You guys sure to spend a lot of time defending an organization that is screwing you."
I'm confused. You only mentioned 2 organisations, but nobody here apart from you defends the FCC and TD is screwing nobody. Which organisation are you referring to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As always, he's projecting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like I said... sucks when you get what you give doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I must have missed those, do you have a link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could all it the Pai.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A pocket full of wry.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a Pai.
When the Pai was opened
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king.
The king was in his counting house,
Counting out his money;
The queen was in the parlour,
Eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes,
When down came a blackbird
And pecked off her nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I can't believe some people think you ever Stopped working for us." "I know, right?"
"To argue that this video amounts to the same kind of deliberative process that goes on behind the scenes in terms of an agency deciding an official policy on a topic, or what actions it’s going to take, is absurd,” Marshall said. “The deliberative process is frequently used to withhold embarrassing information or inconvenient information. I have no idea how a draft of a skit that was supposed to be funny would impair the FCC’s decision-making process on anything, except on, I guess, maybe future skits."
The video itself wouldn't, however if the emails involved demonstrated an extremely close relationship, like, oh I dunno, the kind you'd expect from a boss and their employee, that might make it a little harder for the FCC to claim to be acting for the good of the public, rather than the telecom industry.
It's also possible that unlike interactions with the public, Pai's interactions with Verizon would be more honest, such that the emails could contain statements undercutting claims made elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well it seems like he is using the same definition of "transparency" Obama did during "The most transparent administration in history"
To quote one of the great thinkers of our time "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#RESIST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #RESIST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gop run FCC does not want anyone to see their emails with Verizon.
Didn't the gop recently spend gobs of time and money on ridiculous email scavenger hunts? Where is Trey Gowdy when you need him? Perhaps he could have a look into these FCC emails and get to the bottom of it. Not gonna happen is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition time:
It's not the job of the agency to prevent harm to the agency. It is the job of the agency to prevent harm to consumers. The ones paying its salaries. The FOIA act ensures that the employers of public officials have the means to make sure that the officials are doing the job they are being paid for by the people.
If that would be detrimental to the good of the agency, the good of the agency is not aligned with the good of the people and salaries are obtained under fraudulous pretenses.
Basically the answer is "Accountability? I beg your pardon, we are criminals!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition time:
The entire point of FOIA laws are to make sure agencies release documents that might embarrass and hurt the agency. None of these agencies have a problem releasing fluffy nice stuff about themselves. It is only the damaging things they fight to keep hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither will you find his definition of "telecommunications service"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well if the "joke" process is merely the actual process with a few lame attempts at humor sprinkles on top, than one could argue that protecting one is protecting the other. Of course, that turns the exemption into a fifth-amendment-style admission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pai is clearly bought and sold, but when I come along TD will defend the FCC and Ajit because I want to destroy corruption. TD does not, they just want it bent to their political desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but when I come along TD will defend the FCC and Ajit
Liar, though by all means, provide a citation demonstrating this if you think you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
10 Things you can still do after Title II repeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
Only "Democrats" are that stupid. -- Just my observation, don't bother to point out that "Republicans" exceed them in the more fascistic evils, because I just stated it, see?
Anyhoo, yet more of time-and-money-wasting attempt at a FOIA gotcha, the main occupation of a certain species of weenie.
Note the 4 pointless responses above to mild AC snark as useless in same way. Sheesh.
And this for key morning piece? What the HELL do you Techdirt re-writers even think interesting in this? Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
No, the fact that you're a lying moron who regularly posts things that get reported as spam gets it blocked. Or, more accurately, sent to that spam filter your tiny mind hasn't grasped yet and later approved by a person who goes through comments held for approval.
"What damning confession do you expect will be in these emails"
Could be anything. Or nothing. Or confirmation of what we already know. Why do you have a problem with people wishing to see the evidence one way or the other?
"And this for key morning piece?"
Again, this is not a primary news source. Never has been, never will be. Please go to somewhere that does the job you keep whining about not being done here, because at the moment you're doing the equivalent of whining that the local goodwill never has that week's new releases in stock. It doesn't work like that.
Plus, it's not morning, I'm about to clock off for the day :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know who (last time tried the name in subject line gets it blocked) says he's "not a Google shill", so he must be, huh?
Well, What is the super big secret in these e-mails then? Is Pai afraid we might figure out his secret method for making such awesome skits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marshall is simply not nearly cynical enough to look at it the right way: this was the FCC's official policy, framed in a humorous fashion, and therefore the making of the skit is legitimate deliberation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
catch 23
So ...
... am I crazy, or did they just completely make the case that they are colluding with Verizon to set government policy?
And if not, how so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: catch 23
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: catch 23
They meant to use the "My dog ate the responsive documents." excuse... I'm sure they will get it right in the law suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. File a FOIA request.
2. Wait while the agency stalls and misses deadlines.
3. Be told that A. There are no documents, B. It can't release the documents, or C. It will cost $1,000+ per page to release the documents.
4. Sue the agency and win.
5. Receive mostly blacked out pages.
6. Rinse and repeat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]