FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Criticizes Companies That Oppose His Efforts To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net) 349
Tony Romm, writing for Recode: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the U.S. government's existing net neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Pai said during an event in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet. "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest," he said, "but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy." The surprising rebuke came as Pai forged ahead with his plan to end the net neutrality protections adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under former President Barack Obama. Those rules subject broadband providers like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon to utility-style regulation, all in a bid to stop them from blocking access to web pages, slowing down connections or prioritizing some content over others. [...] He didn't spare tech companies from that criticism, either. Companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter -- speaking through their main Washington, D.C.-based trade group, the Internet Association -- have urged Pai to stand down. In response, Pai sought to make an example of Twitter. He specifically raised the fact that the company at one point prevented a Republican congresswoman from promoting a tweet about abortion, only to change its mind amid a public backlash. "Now look: I love Twitter," Pai began. "But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate."
He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are not the same things.
Re: (Score:3)
I was about post ask asking what one has to do with the other...
I do believe it's an intentional redirect. Or maybe he is hinting that conservatives and republicans are being discriminated against by "liberal" internet media companies so this is pay back. That they don't pay any attention to the needs of such companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently he doesn't understand Free Speech.
I mean, corporations are supposed to be people, right? These corporations are just exercising their right to Free Speech in publicly opposing his Net Neutrality repeal, and he's complaining about it.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not confusing anything. He's intentionally trying to mislead and distract.
He doesn't. (Score:2)
Ajitprop (Score:2)
Truth: This has fuckall to do with rolling back net neutrality.
Don't you hate it when someone (Score:3)
moves the conversation to a broader scope, and then someone chimes in with a detailed critique of how the conversation no longer is about the smaller issue, so the speaker is obviously "wrong"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he's not *confusing*, he's *conflating* those things & quite deliberately.
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so off target it barely even qualifies as "wrong" as opposed to simply "nonsensical." Net neutrality is not free speech applied to packets. It is not concerned with the contents of the packets but their origin and destination. Net Neutrality says you can't discriminate based on origin and destination. You can discriminate based on content, for example, you can drop spam or denial of service attacks. You can even prioritize based on content, so for example you could allow all voice chat packets higher priority, but only if you do it for all voice chat packets rather than creating a paid fast lane for certain people's voice chat packets. Stop listening to insane wight wing sources, they are leading you into dangerous places, like a little lamb to slaughter.
Re: (Score:3)
Try to keep up. The guy didn't say he was redefining net neutrality, he said, and I quote, "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."
So: he has CHANGED the topic on you. He's no longer talking about net neutrality, he's talking about regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:2)
That's even more nonsensical. What regulations have captured what markets for which firms now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I can.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.
Re: Wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is anything wrong with net neutrality we have plenty of time to figure it out before next time they try to suppress it. If at any point net neutrality isn't in the best interests of the american consumer, I am sure that Pai will give us ample opportunity to do away with it.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
This is what the alt-right and "fake news" would want you to believe. "Nothing has meaning, so any bad thing we do can be framed as good. The truth cannot be known, so just believe Trump."
In fact, there are clear and concise definitions of Net Neutrality to be had. Found this easily.
https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The N word? Do you mean "Net Neutrality"?
Re: (Score:2)
"They are the same things in that Net Neutrality is supposed to make sure that all packets are treated equally, which is what "free speech" means legally - all speech is to be treated equally." ...by the government, yes.
But on my site, my blog, my shop's site, there's only one valid viewpoint, MINE!
If I don't ant to sell a wedding cake to a Republican, then I won't and Twitter has the same right not to make business with morons if they chose so.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
That concept seems to appear in a lot of the comments, and isn't true. An end user (you work) is free to what they want since it is their traffic. Net Neutrality deals with a middleman making that decision for the end users without the end users consent, and without a clear network protection or legally required purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Middle men? You mean Peering Nodes or Comcast?
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The problem is, that most people don't have a grasp of what the internet actually looks like, and who is buying what from whom. And the biggest reason is, we (the average end user) don't have a choice, or if we do it is between CableCo Cable Internet or DSL from TELCO. If you fix THAT problem (thanks government for
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?
The difference is in one scenario your organization chose what traffic they didn't want to process, and in the other an entity outside of your control did it without you having any say (other than changing providers if that option exists).
Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought people all over the US complain how they are limited to one Internet provider unless they themselves go into the business of being one. Yeah, I must have a really bad memory because that's not how it really it. Thanks for letting me know how wrong I was!
Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?
If so you are a fuckin
Re: (Score:2)
Hey just save all their posts so after NN is squashed we can mock them in the future thread where people are rebuilding the last mile out of chewing gum and wifi because regular internet access is carved into 1980s cable packages.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?
We are talking about regulations that govern how a company is allowed to operate, specifically companies deemed to be communication carriers, meaning companies that transmit traffic on behalf of third parties. Government ownership or government operation isn't required.
The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.
No, they are different. You are allowed to do what you want with the traffic destined for you once it reaches you. A company in the business of delivering data that is handed a data packet addressed to you shouldn't have the right to decid
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why, but no-one else is making this argument, even though it is the crux of Net Neutrality. Which is to say, Net Neutrality provides a regulatory guideline to ensure the content that consumers wish to receive is delivered to them regardless of the source. If content providers are "clogging" networks with their content, it is because consumers are demanding it.
Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies as many if not most US internet users are limited to one to two fixed line prov
Re: (Score:3)
The common carrier thing goes back to the railroads. To update it to the automobile age, think of a private toll road and if they were allowed to charge FedEx a higher toll then UPS. Shit like this was common at one point with the railways picking the winners and losers so common carrier status was brought in to force the railways to have common tarifs, eg charge by weight or volume, not the name on the package.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.
No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
Net neutrality deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own network boundary.
Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate. Endpoints, aka private companies and private customers, can filter whatever they want.
The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source
This is a very naive viewpoint. Utilities need right of way to run their lines to each residence throughout the city. You can't have everyone digging everywhere or putting up poles wherever they feel like it. Likewise, you cannot have one homeowner blocking internet access to half the city.
There need to be reasonable rules. The ISP/power/water/waste lines need to be built and maintained---while minimizing disruption to private property owners and commuters. The the government must be involved at this level; there is simply no way around it.
With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole. That's the most important thing the federal government can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate.
I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.
With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole.
Any rule that protects the internet INTO getting hundreds of useless spam messages per day is a bad rule.
That's the most important thing the federal government can do.
The problem is that there are always unintended consequences from federal regulation, simply because federal regulation cannot be written to cover all possible situations or provide the right answer in all cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.
There are exceptions for standard network management activities. This includes anti-spam filtering. Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.
The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good. The established net neutrality rules balance network operations and consumer protection very well. I was surprised when they were announced, given Wheeler's background.
Re: (Score:3)
There are exceptions for standard network management activities.
Whenever NN is mentioned, there are never "exceptions." It's "never" and "always". The comment I replied to was one of the "nevers". That's why I replied.
Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.
The ISP should not be under threat of fines for doing something that is so obviously common sense.
The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good.
Other than being from an agency that doesn't have the authority, you betcha. Let's put the rules where they belong, not where it is convenient, and let's stop ignoring the jurisdictional issues just because we like the rules.
Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's too late once the attack reaches the target (Score:2)
> Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.
> No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
> NN deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own boundary.
That makes sense. If you have no idea how spam, DOS, etc work.
A very typical DOS attack has the attacker sending small DNS requests to ten thousand different servers. The servers reply, sending the (larger) answer to the apparent source of the request. T
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Pai seems to be working for the owners of the big ISPs, not the american people.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK BT owns the phone lines
In the US, each telecom company owns the lines it built. This fundamental differences renders the remainder of your suggestions moot.
We could argue whether the British model is better or worse, but there is zero chance of the US consolidating ownership of the physical plant if we cannot even agree on basic regulation.
If you'll recall, a huge chunk of Americans have a massive hard-on for private property rights. Federal rules such as you suggest are simply not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like that only applies to DSL and phone lines though.
Correct. This is part of the benefit for Verizon in offering FiOS---the fiber service is not regulated the same way as copper.
Cable telecoms like Comcast were essentially unregulated by default, so fiber-to-premises brings the phone companies (ATT/Verizon) to parity. While I prefer fair competition, deregulation is not the answer for natural monopolies.
Assuming you're in the US how many ISPs can you choose from, including DSL, Cable, FIber and so on?
Typically, you have one or two choices for residential service. A few regions may have strong competition, but this is extremely uncommon.
I live in a somewha
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about government control of the internet because the rules that it is trying to enforce are public, the actions it takes are public, and the rules are not designed to enable the government to censor speech. The rules as written are not designed to give the government the right to read or manipulate traffic, just the opposite. The loss of net neutrality is a much bigger window for the government to control the internet. Some parts of the government could now collude with the major telecom compani
Re: (Score:2)
Question: How does rolling back Net Neutrality make us less "at the mercy of ever stronger Google?" Wouldn't repealing Net Neutrality (which ensures that all parties pay for their on-ramp/off ramp, with no special charges for prioritization) allow Google could then establish contractual agreements with network providers to guarantee that their traffic receive priority over all else, guaranteeing that Google would have the most established "fast lane" available. Wouldn't it also allow Google to contract wi
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I do not know the answer to your first question. Except that since Google lobbies hard *for* Net Neutrality, it stands to reason they stand to gain from it -- if they weren't, they would at least keep silent. But I would like to have a more specific answer.
Regarding the NN argument, it is essentially the question of local vs. global monopolies and I think the latter are worse. If I switch from Comcast to the other provider -- if available, I agree -- nothing ties me to Comcast. Whereas Facebook has
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to double post but here's what may be the answer to why Google wants net neutrality: "When premium transmission service is offered and at least one content site purchases the service, profits for content sites that do not purchase the premium service are lower than if the premium service had not been offered, all other things being equal."
In other words yes Google can strike a deal but it would eat away their profits and maybe considerably. What reduces Google's profits makes Google weaker.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.
FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet
Either you're deliberately twisting the meaning of Net Neutrality, or you live in opposite-land. The purpose of Net Neutrality is not to have the Government decide what's best for us. It's to keep corporations from deciding that.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me, dumbshit. Your firewall is not selling you bandwidth.
I bet if you think long and hard on the difference between an ISP and a firewall, you will figure it out.
Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
The exclusive franchise agreements are mostly dead now and have been for some time. These days, cable providers meet quietly and agree on territories and stay out of each other's area, because they know that if they allow market forces to apply even on the edges of their areas they will have to start offering better value.
But let's not forget that the exclusive franchise agreements were originally part of the privatize everything kick. They were intended to assure private corporations that they could quickly see ROI on a significant capital outlay so we wouldn't end up with (God forbid) a government supplied utility. So before you get too far behind the cable ISPs crying over regulations, remember that they would never have existed without regulations.
Perhaps one day when most people have 5 or 6 viable choices for broadband internet we can back off the regulations, but we can't let the market sort it out until there IS a market.
Re: (Score:2)
cayenne8 asked the musical question:
Exactly what brand of crack has this guy been smoking????
Comcast brand, of course.
Now available in refreshing menthol blue ... !
Re: (Score:3)
Why should Comcast get to decide what I am allowed to use my internet connection for? If I pay them for a connection, it doesn't matter if Netflix is 1% or 100% of that traffic - I pay them for a connection that I will use for whatever I want.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should Comcast spend a whole bunch of money to improve its infrastructure so Netflix
1. Both Comcast and Netflix deliver TV shows.
2. Comcast also has an ISP
3. Comcast had a 20+ year head start
So, Comcast wanted to milk it's customers with high prices. They could have easily done the same thing as Netflix, but decided to abuse their customers and now wants to double charge for crappy internet.
Also Comcast got very large tax breaks to build the infrastructure, which has not improved in 30 years where I live. And now they charge me if they need to correct the cable from the street to the ho
Re: (Score:2)
Well then maybe they should let us run servers on our connections.
Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit (Score:3)
Yeah, and like you just said, that peering agreement is between level3 and Comcast, not Comcast and Netflix. If Comcast is no longer happy with that agreement, they are free to renegotiate it with level3, which will then likely pass on the additional costs to its customers, including Netflix. They can also throttle the bandwidth coming from level3 to enforce the agreement, which wil adversely affect all of level3's customers, including Netflix. And then level3 can then choose to do something about that, may
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they can charge customers more for the extra bandwidth and speed like Virgin Media do. They don't need to charge them exclusively to watch Netflix.
Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Though I plan to (re)register as Independent. Pai is so full of it his eyes are brown and flies buzz around his head. Not fond of Sessions either.
Re: (Score:2)
a virtual network vs a physical network
Net neutrality is mainly concerned with internet and transit providers. Endpoints like Twitter are not addressed. You would need a different set of rules for that---which is a terrible idea anyway.
that is a moot point. See bakers and other public accommodations
Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from interfering with speech. It does not regulate content providers like Twitter or Breitbart, who are always free to decide what is available on their servers.
When the POTUS uses a platform to address the country, that platform should be a neutral platform of ideas and conversation.
If the POTUS wants to use a platform, the government should either build it or contract its services in a way that satisfies
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Let this be a lesson.
He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.
This is an act of malevolence.
Seems to be a theme within the current Administration.
Cheating the rules (Score:5, Interesting)
Let this be a lesson.
He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.
This is an act of malevolence.
Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act)
FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish)
FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010)
FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015)
FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)
It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?
Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.
That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.
The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.
What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.
What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.
Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.
It's the "rule of man" [mises.org] instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.
Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.
That is not how it works. Congress passes laws and federal agencies, like the FCC, create regulations to implement those laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You fail to mention that up until 2003, cable was Title II. DSL was changed in 2005 after a court ruled the FCC had the authority to make the transition on cable. The 2015 order was returning things to the way they were before since the ISPs had proven they could not be trusted to uphold net-neutrality voluntarily.
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, lets get them out of clean water, water, let the companies poison you with immunity.. Wait, you want them regulating those?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the Flint water crisis an example of the government - Flint City Council - poisoning people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Though a private monopoly could do in theory do the same thing. However you could sue a private company, even a monopoly more easily than a government entity which can claim sovereign immunity or an individual politician who could claim official immunity.
I.e. the government can pretty much poison you without fear of a lawsuit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
On November 13, 2015, four families filed a federal class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit against Governor Rick Snyder and thirteen other city and state officials, including former Flint Mayor Dayne Walling and ex-emergency financial manager Darnell Earley, who was in charge of the city when the switch to the Flint River was made. The complaint alleges that the officials acted recklessly and negligently, leading to serious injuries from lead poisoning, including autoimmune disorders, skin lesions, and "brain fog."[220][221][222] The complaint says that the officials' conduct was "reckless and outrageous" and "shocks the conscience and was deliberately indifferent to ... constitutional rights."[222] The case was dismissed on February 3, 2017, with the judge stating his court has lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the matter. Their attorneys filed an appeal on February 6.[223][224]
The legal doctrines of sovereign immunity (which protects the state from suit) and official immunity (which in Michigan shields top government officials from personal liability, even in cases of gross negligence) resulted in comparatively few lawsuits being filed in the Flint case, and caused large national plaintiffs' law firms to be reluctant to become involved with the case.[225]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: you're an idiot.
Interesting comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is twitter is a message board, they can regulate that board as they see fit, especially when free, but pipes are not the same thing. I dont pay TWC to access only the internet content that they want me to see, typically only their other paid content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you got it right. He's not making a consistent argument; he's trying to poison the well.
I support Net Neutrality [johnmoserforcongress.com]--its one of the few simple and obvious issues out there--and would introduce a bill charging the FCC with regulating the Internet to ensure equal treatment of access to all services from any given customer, save for configuration to prioritize (not accelerate) time-sensitive traffic (streaming, voice) and de-prioritize (not throttle) non-sensitive bulk traffic.
There are technical detail
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm using CrowdPAC instead of something like GoFundMe to comply with FEC rules. There's also ActBlue [actblue.com] for similar purpose. These have been vetted by the FEC and ensure that contributors don't exceed FEC limits; they also all carry proper disclaimers.
So yes, I'm fully in compliance with all state and federal election rules. What was your question?
Re: (Score:2)
Inconsistent reasoning is an epidemic among lobbyists, shills, and captured regulatory authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
By definition. (Score:5, Informative)
Ajit Pai is a tool.
From Cher to Twitter (Score:3, Funny)
All I know about Net Neutrality I learned from Cher and other entertainers via Twitter. And I am outraged.
How are these related? (Score:2)
If Twitter is part of the problem, is he seriously suggesting that government insert itself further into the process to regulate them? Doesn't this statement contradict the goals of his effort to get rid of NN?
And how does a free and open Internet have anything to do with Twitter discriminating (or not)? Perhaps Pai should promot
He has a point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he doesn't. And no, it won't.
If the answer is competition, then why support the change that is guaranteed to reduce competition?
Re: (Score:2)
the change that is guaranteed to reduce competition
Citation needed, don'tcha think? This libertarian think tank says exactly the opposite [fee.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree with Pai in this line of thought. Net Neutrality, as written, may be impeding competition and keeping prices artificially high. Pai has also openly said he wants to prevent municipal broadband by removing state's ability to create their own laws.
I could back him if he was actively encouraging competition, be it by placing ISPs into common carrier status, or treating internet infrastructure as a utility - like municipal broadband or competitive contracts like your local power company(ies)
typical deflection and redirection (Score:2)
Simply giving the power to the ISPs to do the same is certainly not going to help...
The big difference to me is that while I depend on Google and other big tech services, I am not obligated to use them and if I wanted to, there are alternatives or I could simply stop using them (like I have done with my cable TV provider). However, I have only one ISP in my area (at least only one that has more than 3Mb/s data transfer rate) so I have no
Re: (Score:2)
The only real solution, which will never happen, is to force a full separation of service and content. This should apply to both Internet service, and video/TV services.
Classic Whataboutism (Score:2)
I can follow his logic, why can't you? (Score:2)
Pai has been listening to Rush Limbaugh again... (Score:2)
When you think everybody but you is an idiot... (Score:2)
Need more info about the internet 'underbelly'. (Score:2)
On the surface it seems really simple just to say 'Net Neutrality is obviously good because reasons', and I agree with most of the reasons I have found.
But I look a step or 2 deeper and there does appear to be some legitimate questions about competition and internet nuts and bolts type stuff that we may all take for granted.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Maybe there are some people here who can give some insight or add some nuance to the 'underbelly' of the Net Neutrality question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is named Ajit Pai and has the power to fundamentally alter the nature of the Internet. If there's so much white supremacy in the federal government, who let this non-white guy call the shots?
Re: (Score:2)
I would take that bet since these are anonymous and could be, and probably are, members of the alt right.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... Do you really believe, your Left colleagues are all innocent of such sentiment? No, if you read the rest of the each comment — and other ones like it — you'll be disabused of your naivette. The constant references to genitalia and threats of rape are a dead give-away for your brethren — both "alt-" and mainstream Left.
But I do agree about it being impossible to verify. Which kind
Re: (Score:2)
However, I agree that Net Neutrality is not affected by the red herring of free speech in the way Pai says it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You, and he are the idiots. We are not fighting for facebook, google, twitter, we are fighting for ourselves. we do not want our ISP, which in 100% of the cases we have no control over to be able to censor us, or other groups. We also do not want the next big idea to be prevented because they need to pay rent to the ISPs. We pay for access to the internet, not for access to the part of the internet they want us to see.