MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free

Promises that "we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity" like never before.

Todd Krainin, ReasonTodd Krainin, ReasonIn an exclusive interview today just hours after announcing his plan to repeal "Net Neutrality" rules governing the actions of Internet-service providers (ISPs) and mobile carriers, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai has an in-your-face prediction for his critics: "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity," he said this afternoon. "Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

Pai stressed that regulating the Internet under a Title II framework originally created in the 1930s had led to less investment in infrastructure and a slower rate of innovation. "Since the dawn of the commercial internet, ISPs have been investing as much as they can in networks in order to upgrade their facilities and to compete with each other," he says. "Outside of a recession we've never seen that sort of investment go down year over year. But we did in 2015, after these regulations were adopted." In a Wall Street Journal column published today, Pai says Title II was responsible for a nearly 6 percent decline in broadband network investment as ISPs saw compliance costs rise and the regulatory atmosphere become uncertain. In his interview with Reason, Pai stressed that the real losers under Net Neutrality were people living in rural areas and low-income Americans who were stuck on the bad end of "the digital divide."

Proponents of Net Neutrality maintain that rules that went into effect in 2015 are the only thing standing between rapacious businesses such as Comcast, Verizon (where Pai once worked), and Spectrum and an Internet choking on throttled traffic, expensive "fast lanes," and completely blocked sites that displease whatever corporate entity controls the last mile of fiber into your home or business. Pai says that is bunk and noted that today's proposed changes, which are expected to pass full FCC review in mid-December, return the Internet to the light-touch regulatory regime that governed it from the mid-1990s until 2015.

"It's telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings," says Pai, pointing toward actions initiated by his predecessor against "zero-rating" services such as T-Mobile's Binge program, which didn't count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and a host of other services against a customer's monthly data allowance. "To me it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data."

The FCC is not completely evacuating its oversight role. ISPs, he says, will need to be completely transparent with customers about all practices related to prioritizing traffic, data caps, and more. Pai believes that market competition for customers will prove far more effective in developing better and cheaper services than regulators deciding what is best for the sector. "In wireless," he says, "there's very intense competition—you have four national carriers and any number of regional carriers competing to provide 4G LTE, and a number of different services. In those marketplaces where there's not as much competition as we'd like to see, to me at least, the solution isn't to preemptively regulate as if it were a monopoly, as if we're dealing with 'Ma Bell,' but to promote more competition."

Pai says that one of the major mistakes of Net Neutrality is its pre-emptive nature. Rather than allowing different practices to develop and then having regulators intervene when problems or harms to customer arise, Net Neutrality is prescriptive and thus likely to serve the interests of existing companies in maintaining a status quo that's good for them. In terms of enforcement of anti-competitive practices, Pai says the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is better equipped to deal with problems. "The FTC can take action even in the absence of finding harm, consumer harm," he notes, "so even if consumers aren't harmed, if [FTC regulators] deem a particular business practice, any business practice to be unfair or deceptive, they have authority under Section 5 to take action against it. So that's a pretty powerful tool that they've used even in the last couple of years against telecom providers and others in the internet economy whom they believe are not protecting consumers."

In a wide-ranging conversation (listen below as a Reason Podcast), I asked Pai to lay down specific benchmarks by which consumers might judge whether repealing Net Neutrality rules isn't a mistake. He pointed to factors such as the number of fixed and mobile connections, the average costs and speeds of internet plans, and the volume of capital investment as indicators by which his policy could be held accountable.

He also stressed that the increasing shift from traditional ISPs to mobile wireless will benefit from a looser regulatory framework, including the opening up of spectrum that is either under-utilized, off-limits, or otherwise gathering dust. "We're entering a new era of technology known of 5G and that's going to involve massive amounts of investment in networks and spectrum. And that's the kind of thing that will be a big breakthrough for consumers on the wireless side." Referencing Benedict Evans, a partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Pai believes that "mobile is eating the world": "All of these services are migrating to wireless, and particularly in the future, whether we're talking about low-bandwidth applications, like monitoring yogurt trucks that drive across the countryside, or high bandwidth applications like Virtual Reality, a lot of this is going to be taking place over wireless."

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

This is a rush transcript—check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: Okay. Let's get right to it. The big fear that many net neutrality proponents have is that once you let internet service providers and wireless carriers do whatever they want, the internet is going to turn into something worse than cable TV with some content being pushed over others because the parent company owns it, Comcast and Universal, that type of thing. Other content is going to be choked off because they're not paying enough to get best service right to the end, or it's just going to be completely blocked. Why is that wrong?

Ajit Pai: It's wrong for two different reasons. First, it's not the experience we had before these regulations were imposed in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia before then when ISPs were blocking lawful content. Secondly, we require under this proposal to require ISPs to be transparent about their business practices. If they're blocking or throttling or doing any of that, they have to disclose it. Secondly, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to take aggressive action based on its consumer protection and competition authorities to take action against cases like that. If it's network operator preferencing its own content, that's something the FTC can look at. If it's other companies blocking other content.

Nick Gillespie: Would that be legal though, under these rules? And should it be legal?

Ajit Pai: No, exactly. We're requiring it to be transparent and additionally to the extent that a company is unlawfully throttling traffic, the FTC can look into that. In fact, the last couple of years the FTC has done that with respect to a few wireless carriers that were allegedly throttling traffic. They said, "This is not a lawful practice. We're going to sanction you for it."

Nick Gillespie: But, would it be an unlawful practice if you get rid of net neutrality? Because there might be, or if a carrier says, "You know what? Yeah, we are going to throttle traffic because we want to privilege certain other services," would that be lawful as long as it's transparent?

Ajit Pai: Again, they have to disclose it and secondly, to the extent if they're doing something anti-competitive, and it's very fact dependent, but the FTC has a longstanding set of principles that it uses to evaluate conduct like that and so it could well be competitive. It just depends on the facts.

Nick Gillespie: Okay. Or it could be that they're abrogating their own self declared terms of service. If they say, "Hey, we're not going to throttle anything," you find out they're throttling or privileging content, then they're in trouble because of their own promises.

Ajit Pai: Correct. But there are some ways that it can be pro-competitive. For example, if they say, We will allow you to stream all of these services exempt from your data limits," then that's the kind of thing that would be good for consumers. So, we don't want to prohibit different pro-competitive offerings like that.

Nick Gillespie: To get to that point, that's already happening under net neutrality, isn't it? Where certain, particularly wireless carriers privilege. You can stream on T-Mobile or something, a particular set of Netflix or music services that are not subject to your monthly cap.

Ajit Pai: That is what a lot of the companies have proposed, such as T-Mobile, and it's telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so called net neutrality rules were involving free data offerings. To me it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get and companies that want to provide free data. That's the kind of thing that is good for the marketplace and I don't think we should prevent that kind of service.

Nick Gillespie: Where is the competition in internet services? Another major complaint, and these are things that make a lot of sense on face value, most people don't really have two equally good options, much less three or four options to pick and choose from when it comes to an ISP. You're stuck with whatever cable company got the monopoly 30 or even 40 years ago, when local municipalities handed this stuff out. Is that wrong? A lot of what you're talking about is that market's which are based on competition drive innovation and they bring Joseph Schumpeter 101. They bring more and better services increasingly at cheaper and cheaper prices but where's the competition in internet services?

Ajit Pai: Two different points. Number one, it does depend upon the marketplace. For example, in wireless there's very intense competition. You have four national carriers and any number of regional carriers. You're competing to provide 4G LTE and a number of different services. In those marketplaces where there is not as much competition as we'd like to see, to me at least, the solution isn't to preemptively regulate as if it were a monopoly, as if we're dealing with Ma Bell but it's to promote more competition. Ironically enough, these Title two regulations, squeeze the smaller companies, the smaller internet service providers that want to enter the marketplace and gain a foothold against the big guys and they have told us, a number of them, once you see the order you'll see that they've written us and saying, it's very difficult for us to raise to capital. It's almost impossible for us to get a rate of return on our investment if these regulations are in place.

Ironically enough these heavy handed regulations disproportionately hurt the smaller companies. The big incumbents will always have fleets of lawyers and accountants to deal with these regulations. It's the smaller companies. And I've visited some of them. Even government owned ISPs in Iowa, for instance, that have told me that this their ability to build a business.

Nick Gillespie: In a Wall Street Journal piece that ran today, you talked about how the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed ISPs essentially, or wireless companies rather, that generally operate in rural America, 80% of their members say they incurred additional expenses in complying with the Title two or the net neutrality rules, they had to later reduce network expansion to later reduce services and had because the rules cost money to comply with. You also pointed out and you touched on this, 19 municipal wifi services and one major company stopped rolling out an out of home wifi service. Net neutrality rules have had a cost. What was the major company that said that it wouldn't roll an out of home wifi service?

Ajit Pai: That was Charter.

Nick Gillespie: Okay.

Ajit Pai: It goes by Spectrum in a number of markets.

Nick Gillespie: Right. Then the other thing that you talked about was that in the Wall Street Journal piece, in the two years after the FCC's decision, after the 2015 decision, in the years after that, broadband network dropped by almost 6%, the first time a decline has happened outside of an recession. What does that mean?

Ajit Pai: Historically since the dawn of commercial internet, ISPs have been investing as much as they can into networks in order to upgrade their facilities and to compete with each other. What we saw, and so outside of a recession we've never seen that kind of investment go down year over year. But we did after 2015, once these regulations were adopted. One of things that our economic analysis finds in the order is that these Title two regulations lowered the willingness of companies to invest and that unfortunately has a very bad impact on consumers who are on the wrong side of what I call the digital divide. Rural consumers, low income urban consumers, these are the folks for whom it's very difficult as it is for a private company to build a business case for deploying infrastructure to them. They are going to be on the front lines if these heavy handed regulations persist. That's part of the reason why I proposed repealing them.

Nick Gillespie: What facts or developments over the next two years or the next five years, the next 10 years, down the road would convince you that the repeal of net neutrality was a bad mistake or a failure? Be specific. What are the benchmarks that we can hold you or the FCC to in the coming years?

Ajit Pai: Absolutely. My top line message when it comes to regulation is that the FCC should preemptively regulate only in cases where we have a market failure. If in the context of the internet we did see a market failure, we saw ISPs all over, of all sizes, behaving in uncompetitive ways, if we saw consumer being harmed, those are the kinds of things that we would want to take account of. We certainly don't want to see that and my prediction is that these rules will actually take us in the opposite direction from that. They'll promote more investment and competition.

Nick Gillespie: One benchmark would be is if we see persistent lower capital investment year over year. That would be a sign. And it might not because of repeal of net neutrality but that's a bad sign. Would it also be things like the slower speed of average connections, cost of plans, number of fixed and mobile connections, either flat lining or going down? Are those the other types of things that we should look for?

Ajit Pai: Those are some of the indicia that we would take into account. Similar to make sure that we don't see widespread blocking of lawful content. That's not something I think anybody wants to see. That's not the internet we've had and I don't expect that's the internet we will have.

Nick Gillespie: That is, and I'm thinking of, I'm hearing defenders of net neutrality whispering in my ear as I say this, there's the idea that before the, the first time when net neutrality was pushed by the FCC was in 2010 but then it was various court challenges et cetera in 2015 it becomes a reality where the internet is being regulated under Title two, these old telecommunications rules from the 30s. Can we rely on the experience of the internet from the early 90s or from the telecommunications act of 1996 until 2015? Is that the internet that we'll go back to?

Ajit Pai: I believe so. We will have a free and open internet as we had before 2015. Moreover we're going to see it become even better going forward and the reason is that with technological innovation we're entering, on the wireless side for example, a new era of technology known as 5G. That's going to require massive amounts of investment in networks and in spectrum and that's the kind of thing that will be a big breakthrough for consumers on the wireless side.

Nick Gillespie: Do you think, are we entering an era this is one of the criticisms of net neutrality is that it was essentially partly pushed by industries or companies that have a vested interest in things the way they are now. And that includes Netflix, it includes Google, it includes to a certain degree Amazon. That they wanted to stop the internet development as it is now and that they were all about fixed connections. Are we going to be, do you think it's likely that we're going to be entering an era of wireless where most things are based on wireless connectivity?

Ajit Pai: I think so. There is one particularly insightful person up in Silicon Valley who's talked about how, as he puts it, that mobile is eating the world. How all of these services are migrating to wireless and how particularly in future whether we are talking about low bandwidth applications like wireless monitoring yogurt trucks as they drive across the countryside or high bandwidth applications like virtual reality. A lot of this is going to be taking place over wireless.

Nick Gillespie: And mobile stuff. I'm sorry, I confuse the terminology. That the idea that ...

Ajit Pai: Oh no, no, no, mobile's actually right.

Nick Gillespie: And that we're going to be, we're already, I can actually say this at Reason's traffic, more and more it's mobile devices as opposed to people looking at their computer at work or at home. What else has to happen for 5G? Are there other regulatory changes that have to happen for mobile wireless to go gigantic?

Ajit Pai: A lot of them. Number one, the FCC needs to make more spectrum available. It doesn't help if you have a bottleneck in terms of spectrum. We're aggressively moving to get as much as we can out into the commercial marketplace. Both for license, the cell carriers and the like. But also unlicensed, the next generation of wifi. The second thing is we also need to make it easier to deploy a lot of the infrastructure. The future of wireless networks are not going to be ones where you'll see a bunch of 100 foot cell towers, instead you'll see hundreds if not thousands of small cells, some of which you could even hold in your hand. You won't even notice them on the sides of buildings and the like. But to deploy those, we need to make sure that we don't impose the same onerous regulations that we do for a big cell tower. They shouldn't have to go through environmental and historic preservation review, for instance. We don't want to states and localities also imposing moratoria on these kinds of siting applications. Those are some of the things that have to happen.

Nick Gillespie: That was common early on, going back 20, 30, 40 years when cellphones were really becoming popular, a lot of places put limits on where cell towers could be located or how many. When you say you don't want them to have to go through historic review committees in small towns and stuff like that, is that based on the fact that these will be unobtrusive or what is the rationale for that?

Ajit Pai: Part of it is that they will be unobtrusive in a lot of cases. And part of it is also that we don't want to have a patchwork where it's not just the federal government but 50 state governments, any number of municipalities and 567 federally recognized tribes, each are trying to have a bite of the regulatory apple, so to speak. If we really want to claim leadership in the 5G future and compete against countries like China and Korea and Japan, which have a much more, they are very eager to take the lead on 5G, then we need to make sure that our regulatory framework is streamlined. Preserves the public interest but also incentivizes investment. That's not where we are right now.

Nick Gillespie: I see this as the next battleground in fair weather federalism? Because it sounds like you so you're going to have a Republican Congress, I assume. Or role making apparatus that is saying, "No, the federal government really should control all of this." And then you'll have Democrats who are normally adverse to states' rights saying, "No, no, it's gotta be devolved down." Do think that's a likely development?

Ajit Pai: That could always happen but to me at least, the internet is inherently at this point, broadband internet is inherently an interstates service and interstate services traditionally the touchstone for federal regulation. My hope is that we can put the politics aside and focus on exactly how these networks operate and if we do that then there's a strong case for federal government leadership here.

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane?

Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We've never seen them before and that's part of the reason why I thought the rule in particular was, that was adopted in 2015, was very premature banning something that's simply didn't exist. But secondly, going forward, we could see pro-competitive and anti-competitive cases for those kinds of prioritization arrangements. For example, if you want to prioritize traffic in your healthcare provider that needs to monitor patients remotely, that's the kind of traffic that should take precedence you might think, over cat videos and the like. Conversely we don't want to see cases in which companies are behaving anti-competitively in structuring those kinds of prioritization arrangements. You could make a case either way and that's part of the reason why the federal trade commission is the right agency to handle that because that's essentially an anti-trust question. That's something that have long experience in taking care of.

Nick Gillespie: Mentioning the FTC though, isn't it also much more limited than the FCC was under Title two? It really doesn't have the same scope of authority to regulate, it can't do as much, can it?

Ajit Pai: To the contrary it actually can do even more in a lot of cases. For example, they can take action even in the absence of a finding of harm, consumer harm. Even if consumers aren't harmed, if they deem a particular business practice, any business practice to be unfair or deceptive, they have authority under section five to take action against it. That's a pretty powerful tool that they've used, even in the last couple of years against telecom providers and others in the internet economy who they believe are not protecting consumers.

Nick Gillespie: Are you the first commission head to actually say no I want less power?

Ajit Pai: I have talked to some of my predecessors going all the way back to the Reagan years. This is one of the constant battles that you see over the years is that in any administration, whether it's a Republican administration where they are taking a free market position, their tact for that. Or a Democratic administration where they take a more regulatory view. This is a constant back and forth and so I see myself as the next in line in this long tradition not to break from that tradition.

Nick Gillespie: What do you make of the fact, and part of this is due John Oliver who called his army of internet trolls to bombard the FCC website with comments during the comment period about the proposed rollback, and that's good things. It's a amazing that we've had tens of million of people who are suddenly motivated to talk about arcane subject of telecommunication policy. There were over 20 million comments against ending net neutrality, from one account I read. How do you process that kind of pushback against what you're proposing?

Ajit Pai: There was mix of opinion in the comments and we had to take a look at all of the comments in the record that were substantive and significant and that were contributing in helping to answer some of the questions that we keyed up in our notice of proposed rule making. It wasn't easy but when you see the order, you'll find that we did try to sort through as many as we possibly could and incorporated as many as we possibly could into our decision making.

Nick Gillespie: Let me switch topics slightly. I want to ask you about a different area that has to do with free speech and free expression and the free internet. Currently in the Senate there is a bill going through called the Stop Enabling Sexual Traffickers Act or SESTA, there's a version of it in the House as well. In the name of cracking down on human trafficking, the legislation would, in the words of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is in favor of net neutrality but they're against this. They say that SESTA would eviscerate the immunity from liability for user generated comment. That internet intermediaries have under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and would also amend the federal criminal sex trafficking statue to sweep in companies who may not even be aware of what their users are doing.

Section 230 is one of those defining laws of the internet where it created a safe harbor for internet service providers and sites from content posted by users and whatnot. It's widely credited with helping the internet and world wide web especially, the web, become what we know it as. Are you worried that 230 is being undermined by SESTA and that 230 is absolutely essentially to flourishing internet?

Ajit Pai: Here I unfortunately have to give the unsatisfactory answer that I haven't read the legislation itself. I've read press accounts obviously about the debate and I've been following it from afar as it's gone through the relevant committees. I haven't had a chance to study it and think through what the implication would be. I know there were fixes, for instance, that were adopted late in the process, before it went out of the committee and I haven't had a chance to think do those ameliorate the concerns that you're talking about. At this point I've been focused on what we're doing over here at the FCC that I haven't had a chance to think about it.

Nick Gillespie: More broadly though, do you think that the safe harbor that's provided in general by 230 is a good and very important thing?

Ajit Pai: I do think, I do remember when I was in law school in the mid 90s there was a significant debate about this and we were debating at the time, I'm really dating myself now, should bulletin boards owners be liable for what their users post? It seems quaint now, but it's amazing how vibrant this debate still is because there is a sense that online platform thrives precisely because the owner of that platform isn't liable necessarily for everything that's posted on there. I can see the argument both ways and obviously this is an important issue in terms of sex trafficking that a lot of elected officials have their eyes on. Hopefully there's a way to thread the needle that satisfies everybody's concerns.

Nick Gillespie: Speaking like a Michigan alum, which you are, correct? You are tackling yourself, aren't you? You're not going to answer that question, definitively I get that.

Ajit Pai: I just not a Michigan alum so I didn't want to offend any Big Blue fans out there

Nick Gillespie: I'm sorry. Are you a Michigan resident then? Or you grew up in Michigan?

Ajit Pai: Grew up in Kansas. Undergrad Harvard Law School, University of Chicago.

Nick Gillespie: I apologize for besmirching you with any connection to Michigan other than having flown through it on a couple of occasions.

Ajit Pai: Especially in university 'cause my in-laws are all Ohio State fans. Thanksgiving would be a little difficult if they suddenly suspected some kind of Harbaugh connection.

Nick Gillespie: I can absolutely understand that. Going forward, what are you looking for on the near horizon besides 5G that most excites you about the internet and about telecommunications more broadly?

Ajit Pai: To me at least, it's our efforts to close the digital divide. And I understand that things like net neutrality will occupy 99% of the oxygen in the room but to me at least, that percentage is more properly devoted to what we are doing to build out access to people on the wrong side of that divide who don't have access to the internet today and to promote more competition using innovative technologies. We've talked about 5G but this FCC over the last 10 months has already approved the first ever satellite applications, sending satellites into low Earth orbit and beaming very high speed connectivity back to Earth. We're getting more spectrum out there for fixed wireless providers to use so they can compete without having to lay fiber. And for the smaller fiber providers we've taken a number of steps both in terms of wiser distribution of our federal subsidies and our regulatory reform to give them a fighting chance.

Whether it's in intercity Detroit or in rural Kansas, they are going to have a chance to compete. My hope is that over the next coming years we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity and ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that is currently on the shelf, the people who don't have digital opportunity, will be able to be participants in the digital economy instead of just spectators.

Nick Gillespie: Where do get that new spectrum space from? Are you taking it back from broadcast or are you freeing up stuff that's just been collecting dust? Or squeezing out more efficiency?

Ajit Pai: It's a little bit of mix. Squeezing out efficiency is the name of the game in some cases where you have, for example, federal agencies using the spectrum and we're trying to see if there are creative ways for us to share that spectrum. Additionally there is some spectrum that's been fallow for a while and because of technological innovation we're able to now use it potentially for wireless service. There's also some spectrum that has been owned by incumbents that we've sold and then given share of the proceeds to those incumbents and then transferred it to other companies that want the spectrum. It's an all hands on deck approach when it comes to the airways.

Nick Gillespie: You were appointed chairman by Donald Trump, by President Donald Trump. You were on the commission before that as a Republican appointee. Do you feel that you're part of what former Trump advisor Steve Bannon said was an attempt to deconstruct the administrative state? If so, can you make a positive case for being a regulator essentially, a bureaucrat who is saying, "You should be seeing less and less of me as time goes on."

Ajit Pai: To me at least, having worked in this agency for the better part of the last decade, it was very clear to me when I came into office, there were a lot of rules on the books that simply weren't appropriate for 2017. In some cases they were holding back investment and innovation. In other cases they were on books simply as a matter of regulatory inertia. And so we had a chance to think very broadly about how do we want to promote more competition and investment across all of these industries from broadband to media? Over the last 10 months we've had the chance to do that and over time folks are going to see the results speak for themselves. We do want the regulations to be more market based and light touch to reflect the law a congress gave it to us not whatever policy vision we might dream up for ourselves. That's not just a free market deregulatory view, but it's view that's appropriate for the marketplace and for consumers in 2017.

Nick Gillespie: Final question, in your Wall Street Journal piece and elsewhere, and it's not just you, people were very upset, regulators were upset as well as, well I was upset, when Barack Obama really hammered the then chair of the FCC to pass net neutrality. It's not quite unprecedented and it's not quite wrong, but he really got on a soapbox and said, "You know, you guys really have to do this and you have to get it done." It seemed to have a direct effect. There's no question that Obama really squeezed what's supposed to be an independent commission. Would you push back if Donald Trump suddenly came to you and said, "You know what? Like I really need you to put net neutrality back or I want you to do something that you think would undermine the integrity of market based approaches and rule of law approaches to telecommunications policy."

Ajit Pai: I've said from day one since I became chair that this is an independent agency, that we will make our own decisions based on the facts as we find them and the law as we see and we'll call the shots accordingly. We're not going to let any political considerations from any quarter dictate or pressure us into making a decision that we truly believe is not in the public interest. I don't know about my other, the fellow commissioners, but speaking for myself, that's the one thing that gives our decisions credence in the eyes of the American people is that we're seen as the experts on communications issues, not as political actors that sway with the wind depending on who's weighing in.

Nick Gillespie: I certainly look forward to seeing what happens over the, not just the next couple of weeks, but the next couple of years. Thank you so much chairman Ajit Pai of the Federal Communication Commission for talking to The Reason podcast.

Ajit Pai: Thank you sir.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Net Neutrality is a joke. Good riddance.

  • esteve7||

    Good day for Freedom. I didn't for for Trump, but he seems to be doing a few solid things you'd never get in a Hillary administration

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I voted for Trump. I feel a little bit vindicated every time they get things like this right.

  • CE||

    Shouldn't we get rid of the FCC while we're at it?
    Why do we need it?

  • esteve7||

    to manage frequencies. That is all

  • Eidde||

  • Hunthjof||

    That could be done by a private trade group. Not saying that would be easy but it could be done. Though That could be anti-competitive. But we certainly don't need them in wired tech,

  • Eman||

    no, to modulate frequencies ,doofus.

  • drchris||

    Are you serious???? You stupid idiot, if they roleback net neutrality all of our bills will go up and they can throttle your data, or prevent you from accessing website.

  • RealityBites||

    just like the government.... its a joke because it is OWNED by 1% scum.

  • alicepaulin||

  • ||

    Net Neutrality is akin to Freedom Of Speech. People who piss on it are either wholly ignorant of what it is or are the same authoritarians who piss on the Constitution for money.

  • Kevin47||

    Satire?

  • MarkLastname||

    Sadly no, alphadogg really as stupid as his username.

  • ||

    I like you honest alias: last in name. Probably last in everything else too.

  • ||

    Nope. But, to some, business freedom (yeah, lower case "freedom") comes before true protections of Free Speech. Most commenters are greedy poseurs, not Constitutional and American protectors.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "MUH PRESHUS NETFLIX PACKETS!!"

  • Sevo||

    alphadogg|11.21.17 @ 11:13PM|#
    "Nope. But, to some, business freedom (yeah, lower case "freedom") comes before true protections of Free Speech. Most commenters are greedy poseurs, not Constitutional and American protectors."

    Orwell would be proud of that line of lies.
    I don't care it you want to limit speech and fix prices; that's what lefty asshole always want. Fuck off, slaver.

  • bacchys||

    It's not a line of lies. You're just an idiot. A useful one.

  • Sevo||

    "It's not a line of lies. You're just an idiot. A useful one."
    It'
    s a bunch of lies, lefty asshole.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I think he likes you. He thinks you're useful.

  • bacchys||

    If you think I'm a lefty based on that post, you're an idiot and worthless bucket of shit with your head shoved up Trump's asshole.

    Net neutrality keeps ISP's from cutting back access to publications like Reason or the Russian-propaganda shills like OANN or Conservative Treehouse because they'd rather steer people to their Soros-backed websites like WaPo or CNN.

    But since you're a stupid fuck you just bleat out whatever Napoleon tells you to bleat, and then you think you're informed because you memorized it so well.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Net neutrality keeps ISP's from cutting back access to publications like Reason or the Russian-propaganda shills like OANN or Conservative Treehouse because they'd rather steer people to their Soros-backed websites like WaPo or CNN

    Funny, because up to now NN supporters were crying that they might have to pay a couple extra dollars for Netflix. Now you're pulling this line of bullshit?

    Funny how your shitheads weren't up in arms when the Obama administration let Comcast buy NBC Universal back in 2011.

  • Mitsima||

    That's some doublespeak bullshit right there. Where, in the Constitution - oh might protector - does it say the feds have the duty to force someone else to provide you with the means to exercise your, 'free speech'?

    Net Neutering is a property-rights violation, plain and simple. Beyond that, it is a bald-face unconstitutional (if only someone would jump-to and defend the Constitution!) power grab by the feds - another twisting of words to justify violence.

    If any of that is too hard to understand, I have neither the temperament nor the crayons to explain it.

  • ||

    You're omitting the fact that, in many cases, last-mile access to the Internet is a government-protected monopoly. The companies who own these connections have, in fact, slowed or blocked content they didn't like. It's as if, back in print-media days, everyone had theoretically free speech, but only one newspaper was allowed in town by law. Under truly free conditions, anyone who found their access to the Internet blocked would be able to go to a competitor of the blocking company; competition would therefore push toward freedom of access. But since the last-mile companies usually have a monopoly, the questions of freedom of speech and freedom of trade arise. In most cases, there is no real reason for the monopoly; if you can string one wire or cable, you can string two. But if the communications companies are going to insist on and get monopoly power, freedom for their users (both content providers and consumers) would require regulation. I am surprised so few understand this problem.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No, the problem is that NN supporters actually think that bandwidth is unlimited and that data allocation never takes place.

  • Agammamon||

    in many cases, last-mile access to the Internet is a government-protected monopoly.

    YOU ARE JUSTIFYING MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NEEDED TO SOLVE A PROBLEM CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE BY GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.

    It's as if, back in print-media days, everyone had theoretically free speech, but only one newspaper was allowed in town by law.

    So, in your example, GOVERNMENT only allows one paper so its justified to allow government to control what that paper prints?

    The companies who own these connections have, in fact, slowed or blocked content they didn't like.

    Yeah - your porn torrent server. You know, the kind of stuff that eats up the shared bandwidth of neighborhoods and decreases the quality of service for all their other customers in the area.

    If you're trying to imply that any ISP in the US has filtered content by *content* rather than *amount* - that an ISP has slowed or blocked something because they don't like what it *says* - then you don't actually know what ISP's have been doing.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Afghan hits the nail on the head. Or the shorter version.........net neutrality is a market distortion created to fix their previous market distortion.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'Aggememnon' not Afghan. Damned cantankerous squirrels.

  • sungazer||

    Why all the hate on the porn torrent servers? If I want to run a porn torrent server, welcome to the land of the free, fucking liberty hater. Why are all the anti-torrent hate? Unwedge ma Bell from up your ass. Up rates, down rates, and peak time are not magical numbers and our pipes are not that dumb. What's it going to look like for consumers? Hey, here's a thing ISP's are doing in other countries, that reason seems to dismiss like it's from a science fiction:
    https://www.vodafone.co.uk/pass/
    ...
    Let me guess, the thing net neutrality is preventing was caused by government regulation and not multinational corporations? All problems in the world are caused by the US government regulation, including your irregular bowel movements?

  • Sevo||

    sungazer|11.22.17 @ 5:39PM|#
    "Why all the hate on the porn torrent servers? If I want to run a porn torrent server, welcome to the land of the free, fucking liberty hater. Why are all the anti-torrent hate?"
    Are you really stupid enough to beat on that strawman, or simply stupid enough to think you wouldn't get called on your bullshit?
    No one here is hating on any business; we're hating on scumbag free-riders like you who hope you can bill us for your streaming porn, asshole.

    "Unwedge ma Bell from up your ass. Up rates, down rates, and peak time are not magical numbers and our pipes are not that dumb. What's it going to look like for consumers?"
    Quit asking for others to pay your bills, asshole.

    "Hey, here's a thing ISP's are doing in other countries, that reason seems to dismiss like it's from a science fiction:
    https://www.vodafone.co.uk/pass/"
    Oh, oh, look. Something happened in England, therefore asshole here should get free shit!

    "Let me guess, the thing net neutrality is preventing was caused by government regulation and not multinational corporations? All problems in the world are caused by the US government regulation, including your irregular bowel movements?"
    Let me guess: That was the best strawman you could come up with in an entire day.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Hunthjof||

    Not to mention that a number of companies like Sony threatened to start suing ISPs to block such sites to prevent pirating their protected media.

  • Hunthjof||

    Not to mention that a number of companies like Sony threatened to start suing ISPs to block such sites to prevent pirating their protected media.

  • Mitsima||

    Ahh, Agammamon beat me to it.

    Yes, absolutely, last-mile monopolies are a serious - if not the - issue, but the first step of getting out of a whole is to stop digging downward (towards statism).

    And let's not forget that ISPs, unlike govt, shape traffic because of profit motive, not a sense of moral policing; meaning make pr0n a more efficient download and the throttling stops (well, of the bandwidth anyway), whereas govt will shut it down and make you a criminal if you try to Tor it. As for the other claim that ISPs will become content providers and prioritize their own goods over the competition, well, so what; every retail store in America has preferred goods from partnerships and subsidiaries they push over the competition, yet they all offer goods from the competition or risk losing customers to their competition.

    You want good, you buy name brand, you want cheap, you buy Wal-brand; both are sold at Walmart.

  • bacchys||

    It's not a property-rights violation. It's a regulation of commerce AND fits the primary purpose of our having a government. Recall the words from the Declaration about why governments are instituted among men?

  • ||

    Actual it is, and its a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

    Do you actually know the words? To paraphrase: Governments are instituted to secure the rights to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness, and derive their powers from the people. So since this violates rights, it is an invalid use of having a government.

    Nice try though!

  • bacchys||

    It's not a violation of the Tenth Amendment since Congress is delegated regulatory power over commerce, and certainly not under our current commerce clause jurisprudence.

    Further, your paraphrase sucks. The Declaration didn't limit itself to just those three rights. Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights, and among those rights are the three listed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No it's not. I have a right to build an ISP and design the network and packet flow any way I want. That's the freedom of speech.

  • esteve7||

    ^ exactly.

    You have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my network. Fuck off, slaver.

  • MarkLastname||

    Nonsense, the right to dictate how others can use their property is as essential as freedom of speech.

  • ||

    That's controlling speech. If you actually cared about Free Speech as an ISP, you wouldn't fight Net Neutrality. There are smaller ISPs that actually did just that, but they will be crushed by the oligo-friendly Administration.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If you actually cared about Free Speech as an ISP, you wouldn't fight Net Neutrality.

    If you actually knew how data transport and network management worked, you wouldn't be conflating it with Free Speech.

  • janon||

    Irrelevant. The packets are *carrying speech*. Without net neutrality, ISPs are free to sell access priority to the highest bidder (they will definitely do this).

    A small podcast network will be buried in favor of YouTube if Google writes a big check. That will effectively silence this podcast network.

    And the type of politicians you people love, will ensure via lobbyist that whatever *they* dont like, gets silenced. But wont be via direct government intervention, instead they'll just broker deals.

    And if it ever comes out, people like you will scream "FAKE NEWS!!!!"

    All because you view *any* sort of regulation as "bad" yet somehow have an infantile trust in "free markuht" despite *centuries* of evidence that private industry without regulation is apocalyptic. You people are a scourge.

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:12AM|#
    "Irrelevant. The packets are *carrying speech*. Without net neutrality, ISPs are free to sell access priority to the highest bidder (they will definitely do this)."

    Irrelevant.
    I guess the concept of "free speech" is a mystery to lefties.

    "And the type of politicians you people love, will ensure via lobbyist that whatever *they* dont like, gets silenced. But wont be via direct government intervention, instead they'll just broker deals."
    Fuck off, slaver. You've proven yourself to be a piece of shit.

  • esteve7||

    were ISPs doing this at any point from 1989-2014, before net neutrality.

    No? Okay then....

    all of the fucking NN neutrality arguments are what ifs that have never happened

  • DiscussingDiscusser||

    This was explicitly done very recently with T-Mobile zero-rating video services

  • Hunthjof||

    Oh they will trot out about 5 cases in all those times of it as total justification.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The packets are *carrying speech*.

    So does Twitter, but that shit gets censored all the time.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Also, dipshit, bandwidth gets allocated all the damn time. That's why grandma can access her bank account online while you're jerking off to hentai clips.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I don't think any of us want to know what he's jerking off to. Don't go down that road.

  • realityisnotperception||

    I agree! Net Neutrality is akin to losing our Freedom Of Speech.

    Net neutrality, which was championed by the Obama administration, was the brainchild of a socialist professor who wanted government control of the Internet to kill online "capitalist" advertising and to promote "socialist principles."

    The professor, Dr. Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois, founded the socialist thinktank Free Press in 2002, which received funding from billionaire activist George Soros and had tremendous influence over the Obama administration.

    "Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications." (Media Capitalism, the State, and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney – The Bullet Socialist Project, September 8, 2009)

    "Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class." (Journalism, Democracy, … and Class Struggle – Monthly Review, November 2000)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications." (Media Capitalism, the State, and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney – The Bullet Socialist Project, September 8, 2009)

    This is exactly why we need anti-communism laws, and even a constitutional amendment banning Marxism. This McChesney person belongs in a prison, or at the business end of a firing squad for treason and sedition. The existence of people like this threatens our freedoms.

  • Hunthjof||

    I will have to read more on this. Haven't heard that before.

  • fakename||

    The concept was created in 2003 by Tim Wu, who's a lawyer and law professor at Columbia Law School. He's also not a socialist of any stripe.

    None of the things you quoted even mention net neutrality, so I don't know how you make the connection.

  • Eman||

    I really cant tell what youre trying to say, that any way information is shared is still protected "speech", which it pretty obviously is, or that without net neutrality isps are going to throttle poor (and probably black) people's internet access to death or something?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wish there was more opposition in this discussion.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Opposition to what? The entire internet is ablaze with opposition to Pai.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sorry, I mean in the actual interview. His arguments all make sense to me, but I wish there was a counterpoint instead of a relatively friendly interviewer with Nick.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nick knows magnitudes of order more about telecomm than Pai... trust me on this.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No.

  • Bubba Jones||

    There is no counterpoint. There is only the speculation that bad things will happen. Bad things that didn't happen before net neutrality.

    Nick: "Are you worried that ISPs will start charging extra to access porn?"

    Pai: "No."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And my only point is that I believe Pai's points are well formed, but I believe that more confrontational debate is important for policy discussion.

  • pathsny||

    There was a previous incident with comcast throttling bittorrent. Isn't that an example of bad things happening before net neutrality?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    There was a previous incident with comcast throttling bittorrent. Isn't that an example of bad things happening before net neutrality?

    Do you understand how data transport is managed? Providers are responsible for customers other than people downloading pirated movies and tentacle porn.

  • pathsny||

    Sure, and a net neutrality compliant way to achieve this would be to sell plans with data caps. Throttling bittorrent is about discriminating based on the type of traffic.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Sure, and a net neutrality compliant way to achieve this would be to sell plans with data caps

    Which Comcast is already pursuing and--surprise, surprise--people are bellyaching about it because they think it should be unlimited.

    Throttling bittorrent is about discriminating based on the type of traffic.

    Wrong. It's based on the amount of bandwidth being exploited by the content provider so other people can have a decent online experience too.

  • Bubba Jones||

    And the FCC banned it. Before net neutrality. While Republican.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-f.....s-illegal/

    That said, BitTorrent is almost 100% pirated movies so i don't actually care.

  • Bra Ket||

    I'm pretty sure they still have ways to screw with the file sharing to keep them from completely hogging all the bandwidth, which they would under a truly "neutral" system. Of course even the democrats compromise on allowing ISP's to inhibit this so it's a stupid example for them to use.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Throttling BitTorrent is how they are able to not throttle everyone else.

  • Sevo||

    "Throttling BitTorrent is how they are able to not throttle everyone else."

    No!
    A free-rider was using up an economic good?! How could the idiots posting here for price-fixing EVER understand such a circumstance?!

  • DiscussingDiscusser||

    Video bandwidth far exceeds that used by BitTorrent.

  • Sevo||

    "Video bandwidth far exceeds that used by BitTorrent."

    And purple is between red and blue.

  • Brendan||

    Not necessarily. BitTorrent was (maybe still is) hell on network equipment, and there are studies that showed degradation of everyone's experience on the same cable modem node.

    Things have gotten better, but I can't completely blame Comcast for trying to stop something that degraded the network AND was an extremely popular method of pirating content. That said, I'm glad they stopped as there are legitimate uses for BitTorrent, and again, equipment is better and there is more capacity as technology has improved.

    Bittorrent over shared wireless or cellphone connections should open the user to a punch in the face.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It should be of note that the primary reason for doing this was to crack down on piracy. I worked at a cable company and before monitoring that kind of behavior was commonplace theses throttling investigations would always start with an email from RIAA or MPAA telling us to remove the content or face liability. Even though it's debatable whether an ISP would be ultimately held to pay damages most companies are risk-averse and would rather stay out of court.

    So:
    -liability
    -diminished customer experience to external parties

    Make for a compelling business case to throttle bandwidth. It's not like they do it because they like to it because their mustaches haven't been twisted enough that day.

    I'm a little annoyed at how the marketing spin on "net neutrality" has really captured the masses (reddit is filled to the brim with ignorance) add to the mix that a Trump appointee (gasp!) advocates against it then you have a recipie for ignorant RREEESSIIIITTors to pile on to a bandwagon they don't really understand.

    Any more just say 'Trump', or 'corporations' and it lights a fire in people's lizard brains and sends them on the attack.

  • janon||

    People like you are obsessed with porn because you have no real ability to articulate a point without a cheap strawman reduction of your opponent.

    Bad things have happened since *day one*. That is why net neutrality became a thing.

    Only a true moron, or someone being deliberately obtuse because they're morally bankrupt, would waste people's time by framing the laughable argument that given *free reign* to sell access purely to the highest bidder, and choke out anyone who either fails to pay up, or is competitive, companies will somehow do "what is right for the people"

    Yes, I am sure mom and pop.com will get equal treatment as Amazon who is paying 7 figures a month.

    People like you feel 'this is fair' because you are deeply psychotic and would prefer suicide to ceding that your position is wrong.

    But you "dont care about porn" so youll be fine. As fine as idiot coal miners who voted for the orange overlord and are now about to descend into mines (if they can get one of the 10 jobs created) whose safety protocols are now regulated by the worst MSHA violator in modern history with no healthcare because their state puts high risk pool into effect.

  • Sevo||

    "Yes, I am sure mom and pop.com will get equal treatment as Amazon who is paying 7 figures a month."

    Oh, oh look!
    Lefty asshole invents a strawman none of us every thought of!
    Or, fuck off, slaver.

  • Bra Ket||

    Great business model there, let's make a company that invests billions for infrastructure to provide everyone high-tech access to a single vendor. I know I'd pay $50/month for a fancy catalog of amazon's products. Course I could just use a phone and buy out of a paper catalog.

    By the way, what about walmart.com? Target.com? Ebay.com? Apple.com? Are they the mom and pop stores that get steamrolled by big bad amazon?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Tell us how bandwidth is managed in an online network, child.

  • Texasmotiv||

    There is something ironic about attempting to refute the argument that 'this entire net neutrality discussion is hypothetical" by creating a hypothetical victim and not actually citing a really case.

  • Ron||

    lots of Mom & pop operations exist only because of Amazon and ebay, without them they would not have international markets to sell their products and interestingly enough they Amazon and Ebay were created and require those same mom and pop businesses to survive thats their whole market. your argument is false

  • Kevin47||

    He should play Devil's Advocate, I guess. But let's be clear who is the Devil, here.

  • ||

    ^ This. Stossel would have.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, Stossel is pretty good at that.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    I'll make a counterpoint for the sake of argument only;

    In response to the announcement, Joan Marsh VP at AT&T said "This action will return broadband in the U.S. to a regulatory regime that emphasizes private investment and innovation over lumbering government intervention,"

    The argument is that allowing ISPs to negotiate prioritization with those on the other end of the connection will generate more money for investment in the network. Similar arguments were made during this '09 debate with other ISP executives; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyyhwkyJ-Oc

    So, the question is: Who ultimately pays for this "extra money" that the ISPs are able to extract from providers on the other end of the connection?

    Could this eventually devolve into what happens now in broadcast/MSO negotiations over the renewal of retransmission consent agreements? Could an ISP be in a position to effectively block netflx much the same way Dish is current blocking CBS (starting last night) over disputes about paid prioritization agreement renewals?

    By the way, Pai for some reason is a big fan of retransmission consent, probably because Sinclair is also a big fan and Pai just wrapped up rule changes that will be helpful for the Sinclair/Tribune merger and for Sinclair's patent holdings critical in atsc 3.0.

  • Sevo||

    "So, the question is: Who ultimately pays for this "extra money" that the ISPs are able to extract from providers on the other end of the connection?"

    The same as those who pay for any business expense: The customer. Which might be an advertiser, rather than a consumer, as the various businesses sort out the revenue streams.
    Regardless, as a consumer, if I am asked to pay, I can decline. Business works that way as opposed to government where I don't get asked, I get told.

  • janon||

    What an idiotic argument. People like you truly have lost your mind.

    Either you're a billionaire or a moron.

    You think you have "choice" when business in the US has been reduced to a handful of global multi nationals per industry with more power than governments?

    Right right... you can choose to not have internet, because WHO NEEDS IT if you dont like it... right? And you can choose to not have healthcare too. Maybe not eat.

    Because protecting Verizon is *this* important to you?

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:21AM|#
    "What an idiotic argument. People like you truly have lost your mind."

    Lefty shitbags like you never HAD a mind.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • dantheserene||

    Your exact argument could be applied more effectively to government monopoly of control beyond the wildest dreams of any company (unless the government was doing the heavy lifting for them).

  • Texasmotiv||

    It should be of note that the relatively monopolistic state of network access providers is not a market invention. This was all due to government meddling in the first place. It's not right or to be taken for granted that a monopoly would exist absent force.

    No one wishes to protect verizon, I for one wish to protect the environment where companies like verizon and their competitors can flourish. Onerous regulations only hurt new competitors and tilt the scales in favor of the incumbent.

    To insist that companies with competitors will gain more power than the government is absurd. It also ignores historical rise and fall of firms.

  • Mitsima||

    Because protection property rights - everyone's property rights - is *this* important to me. You don't get to take what you want because you claim a "need" to it. GTFO with your, "But it's mine because I want it", BS.

    ...with more power than governments...
    Yeah, let's see that in practice. BTW, the consumer gets less say so when govt runs things than when businesses - who exist for revenue streams - do. I never understood the failure to comprehend that you can tell a business, 'no', but you can't tell a gov't, 'no'.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "You think you have "choice" when business in the US has been reduced to a handful of global multi nationals per industry with more power than governments?"

    Yes. Far more than I do with government running shit, or provideing the product or service in question. Then there is no choice, but then, that's really the goal of you and your progressive friends, eh comrade?

  • And you believe that why?||

    The advertiser is paid by someone. Follow the paper trail and we end up with the consumer paying.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Sure but then people will dump isps who don't have Netflix.

    Not every house has competition but every ISP does.

  • ||

    Not easy with those termination fees and monopolistic contracts.

  • Sevo||

    "Not easy with those termination fees and monopolistic contracts."

    Poor alfamut is all concerned he might pay more than if he bought elsewhere and is hoping that someone from the government will help him since he's such an ignoramus.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Garretsdaddio||

    My ISP has no competition. The only other choice from my Comcast 200 Mbps is lousy phone DSL that only provided me with less than 1 Mbps.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It might be good to ask yourself, "why are there no competitors?".

    It could be that you live in the middle of a desert and no one wants to run cabling to you, or most likely it's because of the labyrinthian web of regulations that bar new entrants.

  • Garretsdaddio||

    LOL I live in a nice size city close to a major one. Originally when I had DSL I got 3 Mbps (paid for 6) and my parents who lived two blocks closer to the city only received 1 Mbps.

    The phone and DSL would drop out for days everytime it rained for my parents but when they would come out they never found anything wrong. Service calls always took a very long time for them to come out and take a look.

    Eventually a few years later I started to have the same problem at my home. My speed dropped from 3 to 1 Mbps. They would attempt to fix when at .5 Mbps and try to sell me a faster plan when they could not even deliver my 6 Mbps plan.

    When I would point out I am only receiving 1 Mbps they would tell me I lived too far away despite the fact I received 3 Mbps for years.

    After many attempts I finally ditched the landline and DSL. They would keep blaming that squirrels chewed through the lines repeatedly through the rout of the lines. I had one tech tell me the truth that the lines are just old, cracking and being patched together using open lines from other customers that dropped phone landline service.

    By this time most people in my area already ditched phone landlines in favor of Comcast service and more reliable cell phone service.

    We did have some other competing internet companies but they all got bought up by the big guys.

  • Sevo||

    "My ISP has no competition."
    Foloowed by:
    "The only other choice from my Comcast 200 Mbps is lousy phone DSL that only provided me with less than 1 Mbps."

    So you DO have a choice, but one you don't happen to like and therefore I should pay to make you happy?
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Have you thanked your good government for having such robust choices? You should.

  • fafalone||

    Let me clear things up for you: his arguments are flat out lies. ISPs claim it effects investing, but in statements to stockholders where they're legally obligated to tell the truth, they say it doesn't. He says more people will participate and NN hurts poor users, where this and other actions raise the cost of participating at both the consumer and provider level, while allowing many poor people's lifeline service to degrade with only expensive mobile internet as a fallback. He says consumers can always just pick a different plan, where almost everybody has at most 2 realistic ISP choices, and most have only 1, and it's absurd to suggest 4G wireless is a valid substitute for wireline service. He says it's absurd that companies can't pay to slow down and render unusable connections to their competition, where it's absurd that they can. He says the FTC can regulate some abuses, where the fact is their power is extremely limited and won't help with most issues.

    He's lying to your fucking face. That's why he makes sense.

  • Bra Ket||

    You're the one lying about the technology.

    I used wireless broadband for a couple of months while my house was being worked on and they had to rerun the wires. It worked fucking fine. In fact it was damned awesome. Roughly half the bandwidth for the same price but the (huge) added benefit that you can take the modem with you and have broadband to your laptop anywhere you go. If I ever actually went anywhere on a regular basis I'd just stick with the wireless no problem.

    There's also no fucking way "most" people have access to only 1. The overwhelming majority of people in this country live in urban areas. Like 80 percent. You're probably getting your facts from someone playing misleading games by counting counties or something (ergo the internet options to places with zero population get equal consideration as downtown manhattan).

  • DiscussingDiscusser||

    A large portion of NYC metro has access to only one provider, Philadelphia Metro is only Comcast. Also, mobile data usage is still limited (3G speeds past certain amounts of 4G usage), so you're able to say it was awesome, because your usage was low enough. Many users do not have the ability use a small amount, especially with multiple children.

  • Bra Ket||

    Oh this is fun. Tell me random message board person, exactly how fast was the wireless internet in my house that I related with my personal anecdote? Please use specific numbers.

    And are "most" people in NYC in that area which you are trying to make your claim about (which I'm quite sure is neither manhattan nor actually limited to only one provider, but please do tell us more)?

    You people are in denial.

  • Mitsima||

    You do realize that the only feasible reason a densely populated area has "only one provider" is because gov't (State? City?) won't let competition set up shop, right? Right? Isn't one of the axioms of leftism that if there is money to be made that "greedy profiteers" will find a way to do it? If they are being stopped, the questions should be, "why?", "by whom?" The answer is, almost always, crony gov't, ergo more crony gov't should be the last solution on anyone's lips.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Democrat run state and local govt. wants to regulate these types of businesses as utilities. Don't let them. Then you can have real competition.

  • realityisnotperception||

    The professor, Dr. Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois, founded the socialist thinktank Free Press in 2002, which received funding from billionaire activist George Soros and had tremendous influence over the Obama administration.

    "Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class." (Journalism, Democracy, … and Class Struggle – Monthly Review, November 2000)

    This is why we see certain groups being removed from Youtube, Facebook etc...

  • XM||

    The best thing about Trump is a very small number of his associates who will do the right thing.

    And the thing is, there is no guarantee that a "president Kasich" would have appointed Gorsuch or Devos.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Or gotten elected... The Don won the audition, recited the platform (including planks cribbed from the LP), and has the electrical generating capacity and transmission lines going for him. All the Dems did was agree with the GOP that we need to be arrested or shot (whichever is most convenient) over prohibition violations. Oh, and try to ban electric power generation and tax us for breathing. The voters decided that the other republicans were even creepier and more disgusting. Besides, The Don said he likes libertarians! He said it right there on camera. The guy is a born actor.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Do you just write this kind of babbling bullshit, or do you actually talk like this too?

    If so, get some help.

  • Bubba Jones||

    What is reddit going to upvote once net neutrality is no longer a topic?

    Basement trolls hardest hit.

  • Boba||

    This. I made the mistake of commenting on the local subreddit in the comment thread of the spam posts being made all over the site. It is hard to have a meaningful discussion with a 20 year old.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yeah, but the female 20 year olds have such tight, bendy little bodies.

  • John B. Egan||

    I want some of whatever he's smoking. Never heard so much nonsense in my life. We've already watched Comcast hold Netflix to ransom, and we've already experienced many cellular companies sneakily throttling back those with 'unlimited data plans'. Either this guy is naïve, or as typical for Trump swamp-dwellers, just a sellout to big business.

    The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic — Quartz - http://go.shr.lc/2hHj3yp

  • Brendan||

    The blames lies with Cogent. They're the ones who took Netflix' business, and failed to properly handle peering agreements with other ISPs.

    Cogent has had issues with numerous ISPs and it always came down to peering link imbalances and congestion, both of which were the result of Cogent selling bandwidth cheap and then expecting other providers to tolerate large traffic imbalances.

    Netflix basically paid Comcast to add more capacity to the link between Cogent and Comcast because Cogent wouldn't pay for the excess that leaving their network for Comcast's network.

  • fafalone||

    If Comcast's transit link with Cogent was saturated, it's their responsibility to pay for a bigger pipe. You know, like they do with every other link that they're not extorting someone over. That is what we pay them for. They wanted to get paid by someone else too. Not to mention that purposefully routed over congested links when faster ones could have been used. But I get it, corporate monopolies using public utilities and subsidies are people too so they can do whatever they want.

  • Brendan||

    The transit link isn't only Comcast's. It's between Comcast and Cogent in this instance.

    If the link is imbalanced, the responsibility belongs to the party sending more traffic than they are receiving. In this cast, Cogent. They have a responsibility to either limit the traffic to maintain an equal ingress/egress ratio, OR to pay for the overages.

    THIS is how the internet has always worked.

    Do you have proof that Comcast manipulated routing advertisements or anything else to have Cogent traffic arrive via congested links?

  • esteve7||

    oh noes your unlimited data plan on your isp is throttled. And this requires using violence to stop it how?

  • Bubba Jones||

    It also bears no relation to net neutrality.

  • fakename||

    If companies won't respect the contracts that they themselves agree to, then they should face consequences. I would bash their knees in myself if I had the power. I don't, but that's why the government exists in the first place.

  • Brendan||

    When Netflix approached Comcast regarding the lack of uncongested settlement-free routes available to its network

    That is not how this works. If settlement free routes are congested in one direction, then the person SENDING the traffic (Cogent) is violating the very concept of settlement free interconnect. The very concept of a congested SFI means someone is doing something wrong. When the congestion is bidirectional, it's in both parties interests to add capacity.

  • Brendan||

    Comcast suggested that Netflix return to using CDNs, which Comcast could charge access fees that would then be passed on to Netflix, or use a Tier 1 network like which charged its own access fees. Comcast made clear that Netflix would have to pay Comcast an access fee if Netflix wanted to directly connect with Comcast or use third-party CDNs. In essence, Comcast sought to meter Netflix traffic requested by Comcast's broadband subscribers.

    This is definitely not how things work. It is, and always has been, irrelevant as to who REQUESTED the traffic. The entity connecting to a network pays for access to that network, regardless of how in demand their traffic is. I pay, the local Starbucks pays, the newspaper publisher pays, etc.

    It is absurd to think that Netflix should get free transit on Comcast's network because Netflix traffic was requested by Comcast customers. Does any company have to pay for internet access if this how things should work?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This is something that morons like Egan don't understand and it's been pointed out here time after time after time to the virgin spergs that show up on these articles--Netflix has been taking advantage of settlement-free interconnect for years, and getting their data floods "throttled" was the inevitable result of that.

  • fafalone||

    Dude stop talking, you know just enough to think you know what you're talking about, when you don't. Netflix pays their immediate upstream provider, this link was farther into the network. They offered free CDN services, like Comcast accepts for everyone else, but sought to charge, even though Netflix was offering to reduce their transit costs for free by doing that. Comcast is responsible for paying for the transit to the sites their customers want. That's why Comcast charges you. They were refusing to do that, for one particular popular site, because they wanted to extort money from that site, in an arrangement that did not apply to any other site.

  • Brendan||

    Netflix pays their upstream provider, their upstream provider has an obligation to ensure sufficient capacity is available between that provider and their providers (Comcast in this instance).

    Netflix is not entitled to a free ride on Comcast's network, and I can see why Comcast would deny such an offer given the bad faith behavior Netflix had engaged in leading up this "offer".

    Comcast is responsible for paying for the transit to the sites their customers want.

    Speaking of not knowing what one is talking about. Wow. The internet has never worked this way. Never. The network on the receiving end of an imbalanced settlement free link is and was never obligated to upgrade their side for free. This would undermine the very concept of settlement free peering. The idea of 'recipient pays' would actually destroy the internet as we know it.

    Dude stop talking, you know just enough to think you know what you're talking about, when you don't.

  • Stilgar||

    Dude, stop stalking, really. It is up to COMCAST to upgrade their side. Why? Because their CUSTOMERS are the ones paying them to provide bandwidth that COMCAST promised to them. If Comcast/Verizoff/etc does not have the capability it is their bad - not Netflix, Amazon, Google or any other website.

    Can't wait for Netflix, Amazon and Google to start charging ISPs for their customer's access to these highly desirable web services. Really, if it weren't for the end point destinations, would anybody buy internet service from these ISPs?

    Google and probably Amazon as well would love to build out an open network. But they can't because the ologopolies you are defending are government mandated control of the last mile. Remove that and kiss Verizon, Comcast, Optimum, etc, etc goodbye.

  • Sevo||

    Stilgar|11.22.17 @ 10:06AM|#
    "Dude, stop stalking, really. It is up to COMCAST to upgrade their side. Why? Because their CUSTOMERS are the ones paying them to provide bandwidth that COMCAST promised to them."

    Let me guess:
    Stilgar, as an adolescent lefty, thinks "speeds up to X" is a guarantee of those speeds and now want the government to give it to him.
    The term for this is "Slaver". Fuck off.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It is up to COMCAST to upgrade their side. Why? Because their CUSTOMERS are the ones paying them to provide bandwidth that COMCAST promised to them.

    Hey dummy, there's a reason every ISP--including the fiber networks offering 1GB up/down service--say that they offer "up to" those speeds. If you think you're entitled to 1GB up/down at all times, then you're an idiot who doesn't know how data transport works.

    Google and probably Amazon as well would love to build out an open network. But they can't because the ologopolies you are defending are government mandated control of the last mile.

    Nothing is stopping them from building their own networks. Absolutely nothing. You really think that last-mile franchise would stand if Google came into a city and offered to build a fiber network there?

  • Brendan||

    You really think that last-mile franchise would stand if Google came into a city and offered to build a fiber network there?

    The sort of funny part about this is that Google seems to have discovered just how expensive and difficult it is to build infrastructure. I don't think we'll see much expansion with Google Fiber, and most likely see them selling it off since it's not something they can just abandon when they get bored.

  • Brendan||

    The customers are paying for access to Comcast's network.

    If the other ISP doesn't have the capacity, it's their fault, not Comcast's.

    Under a system where residential/business ISPs (referred to as 'eyeball providers') have to continually upgrade their peer links to accommodate inbound traffic from other ISPs, you can expect nothing but rate increases and service level decreases.

    When large businesses and content generators can all get cheap access from a transit provider (Cogent, etc.) that can then expect unlimited upgrades to peer links between that provider and the eyeball provider, you will end up with ISPs like Comcast that only service residential customers (who have few or no real ISP choices), and other ISPs that only service content generators. This will lead to bills going up, speeds going down, and/or data caps due to the bandwidth demands of a small proportion of customers.

    Right now, ISPs that service residential customers also have a decent number of large customers who generate content as well as CDNs. These customers pay a lot more for their connection, but get better SLAs, bandwidth guarantees, etc. and they pay for part of the network.

    Things are a lot better for everyone when ISPs can properly enforce peering agreements.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    First sentence in your story:

    Netflix hand-delivered 256 pages (pdf) to the US government this week arguing that Comcast shouldn't be allowed to acquire Time Warner Cable.

    When politicians control buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold are politicians.

  • Tony||

    I don't suppose it matters to anyone that the justifications for this are all voodoo economics bullshit.

    Government giving windfalls to corporations without any other action does not create jobs or infrastructure or any other social good. It just puts more money into bonus checks for executives.

    The excuses Pai is giving here are so flimsy that we should all be more worried than we were before he uttered them.

  • Kongming||

    Interestingly, the corporation that I work for gives me some of that money too. twice a month in fact. And I'm not alone! It may just be some weird thing with the area I live in, but I swear that EVERYONE I talk to also gets their money from a corporation.

  • Tony||

    What sheep you guys are.

    He promised capital investment in infrastructure. It's bullshit. Ask a room full of CEOs if they take extra profits and automatically hire more people. See how many hands go up.

  • Sevo||

    "Ask a room full of CEOs if they take extra profits and automatically hire more people."
    Tony bullshit and non-sequiturs!

  • Arizona_Guy||

    You're not even wrong.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    *Reply to Tony

  • Microaggressor||

    Who promised capital investment? Pretty sure Ajit didn't. He explained that deregulation would accelerate private sector development. To put it in retard terms, that's how the internet gets faster. A regulatory straight jacket keeps technology frozen in time, like Cuba's economy.

    It's pretty simple to understand, if you don't have brain damage. But most socialists do.

  • Tony||

    How is neutrality a straightjacket?

  • Microaggressor||

    That depends how you interpret it. If you're Obama, you classify it as title II. I assume you read the articles, so I don't have to explain what that means.

  • DiscussingDiscusser||

    This is probably the most important point. Net Neutrality is a very important idea, as far as describing the passage of digital communication via the internet. I feel that the argument should be most entirely about implementation of protections (or free market influence) that will guarantee non-prioritized internet traffic. There is an issue when companies form regional monopolies and negate the needed influence of free markets. There is much discussion to be had about what to do to prevent abuse due to monopolistic practises, but I think there is no further debate about ISPs behaving monopolisticly (probably not a real word) and the need for the high-level idea of Net Neutrality.

  • Brendan||

    I feel that the argument should be most entirely about implementation of protections (or free market influence) that will guarantee non-prioritized internet traffic.

    I'm actually warming up to the idea a little. As long as it's transparent as to who gets what priority, I'd be interested to see how video conferencing and VoiP would do in a world where they can get better QoS.

    This would only work if the entire path honors QoS tags, and it's a long shot to have one ISP honor another's tags. The only benefit would then be if both parties are on the same ISP and there is a bottleneck somewhere.

    When it comes to all the people whose argument is basically "Muh Netflix", I wonder how they would feel if Netflix could pay to get above average priority.

  • Sevo||

    "How is neutrality a straightjacket?"

    When did a regulation make anything more free? But I realize words have many meanings for you:

    Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
    "I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."

  • Mitsima||

    When business needs to ask permission to conduct, or may expect reprimand for conducting, voluntary transactions how is it not a straightjacket? Govt has never been able to keep up with the speed of business; adding regulatory overhead to slow it to the speed of political bureaucracy is the very definition of restraint.

  • MarkLastname||

    More proof you're retarded. CEOs earn salaries; investors are the ones who get profits. And the fact that profit margins track capital gains tax says that capital markets are in fact competitive; so yes, if a companies gets a boost in profit margin, unless they're sitting in a government sanctioned monopoly, they expand production and/or lower prices to surpass their competitors. Lower minimum wages, and Wal-Mart's profit margin stays the same, because they use the increase to expand.

    Your bullshit is in direct contradiction to empirical evidence Tony. Even Democratic economists are against you. You pseudomarxist drivel only serves to embarrass you.

  • janon||

    Ironic opening sentence form a deluded partisan moron.

    CEOs mainly take "salary" in the form of equity, to the tune of 300-500x an average employee (up exponentially from even the Reagan years). If you're not a CEO you are, again, a *moron* to defend this.

    So CEOs have a vested interest in *purely* serving shareholders. Then *maybe* customers. Employees *dead* last.

    This doesnt require debate for anyone with a functional brain.

    As for the second point, it has *already been tested* while you were in your coma. The last big boon given to corporations via tax holiday, they took the opportunity to repatriate cash that they sat on while expanding overseas business and stockpiling *more* cash outside the US again.

    So no, companies dont reinvest boosts in profit margin. They use it to cannibalize markets and eliminate competition, not "surpass" competitors. Can you name many industries in the US that arent *already* oligopolies u idiot?

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:38AM|#
    "Ironic opening sentence form a deluded partisan moron."
    Stupid opening sentence from lefty imbecile.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Mitsima||

    How are CEOs going to server stockholders without satisfied customers? How are they going to keep customers satisfied without *competent* employees? How are they going to keep *competent* employees by wasting assets on incompetent or redundant employees (ask Dudley Dough)? All of this is clearly a balancing act you don't understand. Innumerable are the failed businesses that also failed to understand. And yes CEOs make 500x what a stock boy does, but s/he also has 800x the responsibility and 8000x the productive capacity.

  • Tony||

    Since there is no empirical evidence that higher profits automatically lead to increased social good, why not simply not make that argument? Just say they are allowed to stick the money in their ears and go phtphphtphp! because it's a free country, and workers should just become CEOs if they don't like the arrangement?

    We on the left think the privilege of making a boatload of money comes with some measure of social responsibility. You guys aren't supposed to give a shit, so why make up fairy tales?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Can you please define some of your subjective terms here?

    -social good
    -social responsibility

    It's hard to understand what you mean when your terms are so nebulous. Correct me if I'm wrong but it just sounds like you want to make decisions for people on when it is appropriate to be charitable and what that charity looks like.

    It sounds like you have principles about what someone ought to do but haven't worked out the practicality of how you force everyone to have the same values as you. Some of your predecessors have and it's not pretty.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Tony wants to hear Khmer Rouge whispered in his ear while he furiously masturbates with a baseball bat shoved up his ass.

  • Sevo||

    "Since there is no empirical evidence that higher profits automatically lead to increased social good, why not simply not make that argument?"

    You mean your retirement would be helped by lower profits, you idiot?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's interesting that you see the lack of action here as a windfall.

  • Sevo||

    "Government giving windfalls to corporations"

    Not regulating = "giving windfalls"
    For your edification:
    Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
    "I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."

  • esteve7||

    Clearly Tony doesn't understand that words have meaning

  • CE||

    How did the Internet ever survive and grow before Net Neutrality?

  • Mitsima||

    Al Gore nurtured it in his emissions-free zero carbon footprint server farm.

  • sungazer||

    I for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords. Good thing there's plenty of incentive to throttle anonymous connections and decentralized services...

  • Sevo||

    Hey, did you bring taht bullshit with you, or find it on the way.
    I notice all the "regulations = freedom" idiots are squawking about "CHINA!" Is that a talking point on Vox or some such?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So, the answer is to put China in charge of how packets flow. I like the way you think, sir. It's like the old Bugs Bunny game.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In case you don't get the joke, China has had net neutrality from the beginning.

  • Microaggressor||

    So progressive. I hear their government is designed to Get Things Done. A perfect home for Tony.

  • Mitsima||

    I can't wait to hear the proggies chanting, "Build that Firewall! Build that Firewall!"

    The best days are yet to come.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Now where oh where in heck I put that 56k USR modem?

  • Mitsima||

    Replacing the IoT(1) with the EoT(2) since 2014.

    (1) Internet of Things
    (2) Equality of Things

  • Arizona_Guy||

    We already had an article to argue about this today. You're a day late and a buck short, Jacket.

  • hackajar||

    From a libertarian point of view, I am split. On one hand, the government has locked in who can provide the last mile, and has spent over $300 Billion on subsidies to these providers. Why should we let them throttle the last mile as part of what I also am paying for. On the other hand, government mandating what a private company can do with its service has always been a no no.

    To use an analogy, what if we were forced to have fluoride in our last mile of water to our houses, but we just didn't want that, and we could never switch to a water provider that didn't have fluoride? How would we react to that? Oh wait...

  • Bubba Jones||

    Drink bottled water?

  • damikesc||

    From a libertarian point of view, I am split. On one hand, the government has locked in who can provide the last mile, and has spent over $300 Billion on subsidies to these providers. Why should we let them throttle the last mile as part of what I also am paying for. On the other hand, government mandating what a private company can do with its service has always been a no no.

    I'd argue "Giving the government more power to battle a problem the government caused in the first place" is a poor argument to make.

  • Brendan||

    This is something that should be addressed at the local or state level. They granted the monopolies, demand that they revoke them.

  • Microaggressor||

    The problems caused by monopolies have never been solved with regulation. Regulations can't change the fucked up incentive structure. And they only further entrench the monopoly. Permitting competition is the only solution that isn't counterproductive.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I have both Uverse and Comcast available at my house.

    If your house has both cable and phone, there should be at least two ISPs.

  • janon||

    Wow. TWO whopping ISPs you can choose from! A phone monopoly with their absolute crap xDSL based offering unless you are miraculously in an FTTP/FTTN area, or the cable monopoly with DOCSIS.

    But morons like you seem THRILLED with the prospect of cable/telco mergers too... so now what?

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:39AM|#
    "Wow. TWO whopping ISPs you can choose from!"

    Oh, poor lefty assholes like Janon would p[refer the ONE (non-whopping) ISP as provided by the government, right, slaver?
    Oh, and fuck off.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's definitely a difficult problem. I'm always suspicious about why this "last mile" problem exists. When monopoly does arise I find it valuable to ask how it came about in the first place.

    Second, I wonder if this increasingly becomes a non-issue with increased wireless communication. As the tech for that becomes better and cheaper I wonder if it will allow for competition in a much more agile way. One big disadvantage America has is that we were the first, and thus our infrastructure is the oldest. Also, how big the country is. I don't know how much each of these ultimately impact things though.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We'd demand the government get out of the last mile of water business. It's not hard. Putting the federal government in charge of your packet delivery on the internet should scare the bejesus out of everyone with an ounce of tech savvy.

  • esteve7||

    Leftists: We need the government to protect us from ISPs because they COULD do something. Something they've never done before. But just in case. For reals.

    Also the dark days of the internet --- in 2014. Does no one have any memory at all? What issue was in 2015 that requires the threat of violence to fix? Fucking control freaks.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I'm sure this will be cast as "radical deregulation!"

    No, it's being put back to where it was a mere 3 years ago. You know, The Dark Ages

  • esteve7||

    just like how people were dying in the streets and children were being denied medicine in the dark days of 2008 before Obamacare.

  • janon||

    Except they were. Just not well off white people like you and the other subhuman assholes that post here calling yourselves "libertarians" because you're cancerous radical right wingers who also enjoy pot

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:40AM|#
    "Except they were."

    Cite missing, fuck-face.

  • esteve7||

    god the socks are so lazy nowadays.

  • Kevin47||

    The only reason progressives even care about this shit is that Google paid Moveon.org a ton of money to support net neutrality 12 years ago.

  • Microaggressor||

    It just happens to be in the self interest of content providers. Netflix would rather not have to pay Comcast for placing a burden on their networks. Follow the money.

  • esteve7||

    I'm amazed by how this one issue uniquely pisses off leftists so much. Their desire to control what they don't understand never ceases to amaze me.

    Only a leftist could look at the Internet, the greatest success story of our lifetime, and think, yeah we need the government to tightly regulate it. Despite the internet getting where it was today because it was lightly regulated.

    Just like how they look at Capitalism lifting half the fucking world out of abject poverty in our lifetimes and think, yeah capitalism sucks, we need socialism! And Socialism has done nothing for the planet but bring death and misery.

    Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

  • Kevin47||

    See my comment above about the payment to Moveon.org. It is, literally, that simple.

  • Sevo||

    Mozilla is also whining on the home page, but then they're used to whining; 'donate, since we want to remain pure and not run ads!'
    Run ads, for pete's sake. I'm a big boy.

  • Microaggressor||

    They're in it for the money, if it isn't obvious.
    Progressives just happen to be easily convinced useful idiots, who will do Big Content's shilling for free. The best kind of advertising. It's so good, they don't even know they're corporate shills!

  • Sevo||

    "They're in it for the money, if it isn't obvious."

    It is. Not sure if this will work:
    https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2
    It is intended to show Mozilla's hot new digs on the Embarcadero, about as high-rent as you can find in SF, and SF low-rent is about as high-rent as you can find.
    If the link won't do it, go to Bing or Google street view at "386 The Embarcadero" and do a 360 spin. Nice, right?
    If they are getting along on contributions, I'd like to see the books.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There's a little share button you have to click, then they make a link for you:

    https://binged.it/2hJyfuI

    I feel like I'm just stalking you at this point, Sevo.

  • Sevo||

    So THAT'S what that tab means! If that's 'stalking', have at it.
    But you can easily see that Mozilla is either running a on a net negative or enjoying some good times.
    Looking NNE ( https://binged.it/2hKKFmp ), that's the Waterbar. Home of $40 lobster rolls and $20 vin ordinaire short-pours.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Unfortunately it's not just lefties in this case. Net neutrality has a tremendous amount of support because it has such good PR. Even the normies who are usually apolitical are worked up about it. Frankly, I'm amazed we're getting even this rollback, it's such an unpopular position to take. I'm very worried that this is going to be a temporary victory.

  • Microaggressor||

    It requires an understanding of market forces AND the technology, which is why you only see opposition on libertarian sites. Throw someone an infographic saying AJIT PAI WILL FORCE YOU TO HAVE TIERED INTERNET and a lot of people won't know how to prove that wrong. Even worse if they're easily scared.

  • janon||

    I look at you subhumans and wonder the same.

    The greatest success story? You mean the network *created by the f'ing government to begin with you moron*?

    Which started its decline once large commercial entities started forming and cannibalizing control of it?

    Which have now been reduced to a *handful* of providers in the US who are *universally despised* by their customers?

    Which has now lead to the handful of telco monopolies looking to merge with the handful of cable monopolies thereby ensuring there is *no* competition *at all* within a region for what has become a *lifeblood* service for people?

    But of course you're a well off white male who will just pay up whatever ATTCAST asks b/c $350 a month isnt much for you. And you have *no* empathy for anyone who cant afford that b/c you've convinced yourself that if you can't afford something, it's because you simply dont deserve it.

    Is this the "great success story" you're referring to?

    Believe me... as much as you hate and fail to understand "us", the feeling is *really* mutual

    I *pray* I see the day when something you vitally need for survival has been made *completely* unavailable to you thanks to the behavior of corporate institutions empowered by your heroes.

    Of course then like a true right wing a-hole hypocrite your tune will change overnight... "BUT I *NEEEED CHEMO!!!!* ITS NOT *RIGHT* THAT *I* CANT AFFORD IT!"

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:45AM|#
    "I look at you subhumans and wonder the same."
    I look at slimy assholes like you and wonder why, oh, why, didn't your momma have an abortion?
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    So, the collectivist bigot who wants the government to completely control speech is calling people who oppose all government infringements on individual rights 'radical right wingers'?

    I guess I would be surprised, if you had displayed any kind of mental acuity or intellectual curiosity up to this point.

  • Mitsima||

    The gov created the 'Net like it created roller coasters because it put down rail to transport tanks. I've been in the IT industry a looooooooooooooong time, and the network research funded by DARPA is nothing like the Internet - it wasn't even envisioned to be as it is today. As a matter of fact, DARPA gave a fuck if it was never used outside the military.

  • fafalone||

    The internet was successful for a long time because it was mostly ignored by megacorps. What happened with Netflix and Comcast was only the beginning. Do you seriously lack the vision to see unchecked capitalism can flow once that door has been opened? It was inevitable once the internet became a public utility used by everyone. Now the gatekeepers have outsized power to allow companies to lock competitors out of the market; that's exactly where we're heading. ISP has a video service-- it's free, if you want to use another, you have to pay more, and they have a vastly higher barrier of entry since they'll get charged out the ass for access to customers too, when previously all they had to pay for is their own connection.
    The internet is a public utility, it's a natural monopoly, an effective monopoly, is required for everyday life, uses taxpayer subsidies, and government granted rights of way. It should be regulated like the utility it is. Net neutrality is not onerous, and prevents the worst abuses, because it ensures that the internet continues to work in the way that made it a success, not change to a new model where costs go up for everyone. The regulations were put into place because that's exactly what started to happen.
    What the fuck is wrong with you? Oh yeah, you think corporations have a god given right to fuck everyone as hard as they can even while being a government-granted monopoly.

  • Brendan||

    The internet is still successful. What happened with Netflix and Comcast was the fault of Netflix.

  • Mitsima||

    Declaring a thing a public utility does not make it so. In fact most "public utilities" are not, either since they are privately owned. What part of private fucking property is so hard for you to grasp, McFly? Oh yeah, you think you have a god given right to fuck providers and producers as hard as you can using government force.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Holy F I just broke on one of the ads and clicked it. Claire Abbot of instagram fame, hubba hubba.

  • AngelaM||

    Once again the clarion cry of more competition is being sounded as a reason for deregulation. The problem arises in the areas where competition is sparse, poor neighborhoods and rural areas. Preventing the providers from regulating the speeds by which various data is transmitted, won't create greater access or encouraging more companies to enter those markets. It will however allow the providers to charge different rates to transmitters to ensure that there aren't those annoying transmission delays. I don't see anyone benefiting except the providers. This may not be a bad thing but why not admit what is happening instead of dressing it up in false claims of "competition?"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't see anyone benefiting except the providers.

    If your internet is slow because thousands of people in your area start watching netflix at around 530pm, forcing the provider to treat every packet equally doesn't improve the problem. It creates shitty service for people who want to watch netflix, and marginal to ok service for people who want to load a web 1.0 text frame in Netscape 1.0 or send chat messages on IRC.

    The answer is more capacity.

    I can't imagine what my life would be like as the network architect for my company, if my CEO told me I had to treat every packet equally. Good luck on your voip call.

  • fafalone||

    Are you stupid or evil? NN doesn't prohibit QoS.

  • hackajar||

    Actually that's exactly what it prohibits.

  • Mitsima||

    It not only prohibits business-based QoS, it disincentivizes investment in infrastructure. If I'm a monopoly with gov top-cover why should I bother improving my service? I'll just charge you more for a crappy product and tell my gov regulators, "Look, all the pipes are saturated and everything is wide open; no one can blame me!".

  • Sevo||

    "...The problem arises in the areas where competition is sparse, poor neighborhoods and rural areas...."

    I missed the memo guaranteeing net service to those who chose to live in rural areas.

  • esteve7||

    100MBPS is a RIGHT!

  • janon||

    CANT WAIT until "esteve7" has no ability afford something because his ideology has come full circle and lodged firmly up his ass.

    Make sure to STFU and take it when that day comes.

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 12:48AM|#
    "CANT WAIT until "esteve7" has no ability afford something because his ideology has come full circle and lodged firmly up his ass."
    CAN'T WAIT until fuck-face Janon is sent to the gulag.

    "Make sure to STFU and take it when that day comes."
    In the gulag, fuck-face lefties die no matter what they say, fuck-face.

  • esteve7||

    so this was happening in 2014 before NN?

    Get a fucking grip you lunatic

  • hackajar||

    Yes, ISP in NOLA started blocking Vonage (when that was a thing) to support its own VoIP service. FCC stepped in and told the ISP to knock it off. That was 2005. There were a LOT of ISP's "testing the water" with restricting service providers, the Netflix / Comcast thing happened BEFORE 2015, and by "magic" the issue went away, when Netflix coughed up cash to Comcast.

  • KBeckman||

    So you are saying that back in 2005 an ISP tried to setup some anti-trust bullshit and the FCC intervened. 10 years before Net Neutrality.

    So why is it necessary?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So you are saying that back in 2005 an ISP tried to setup some anti-trust bullshit and the FCC intervened.

    During the Bush administration, no less.

  • esteve7||

    you are a fucking idiot. The only ideology that applies to is socialism.

    seriously how the fuck did the internet grow and thrive without NN? NN was only a thing until 2015. Do you ever stop to realize how asinine you are?

  • Mitsima||

    'How Asinine' was Janon's nickname in college.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    There are a ton of things I can't afford. It's hard for me to imagine that there's anyone on this board who can afford every single thing they want to.

    You really believe in your hateful heart that everyone here is some kind of billionaire, anti-poor Scrooge, don't you?

    I wish you could step out of that sock for a second, and realize just what an idiot you look like.

  • Ariel||

    AngelaM,
    You're dealing with an ideology, one that thinks all things will be solved by "free market", that all things can and will be built by a "free market", and it will all be done at a lower cost for everyone because "free market". We sing 'kumbaya' and all is made right. Or would that be we sing 'Imagine'?

    What I'm really saying is that all these ideologies are just crap by how far they take their sacred words and they always take them too far. Libertarians (it applies to all ideologies, I'm just picking on them because, well, they are the majority here) claim we would have the same or better of everything if only we let an unfettered free market reign. They're reductionists, they reduce the complexity of our world to their ideology then claim their ideology explains the complexity of our world. Moreover, they're Utopians, and from what I've seen Utopians never create anything other than a Dystopia.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Seems a bit unfair. In some ways Libertarianism is less reductionist than any. The "free market" concept refers to the billions of actions of individuals each trying to optimize for themselves, and that in the long run this leads to overall improvement to the system.

    Certainly, it seems less reductionist that saying that set of individuals know which lever to pull to make everything work. Enough so that they make it a law and enforce it with a gun. The "free market" stuff is consistently researched, but it is ultimately allowing for an incredibly complex system of human interaction to continue unfettered. I don't believe that is reductionist.

    Some do get needlessly Utopian, i will agree. But even from a purely consequentialist standpoint, Libertarianism can be viewed as a refusal to reduce the complex system to that which can be manipulated at will.

    Also, there is a large philosophical side beyond pure consequentialism nicely summed up repeatedly by Sevo with "Fuck off, Slaver." This brings the question of when is it ever valid to force another person to action with threat of violence. What is your opinion on that? I certainly have a hard time with it.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, gee, aren't we lucky to have a philosopher show up to tell us things we've NEVER, EVER thought of!
    Hint, Ariel, there are people here who have discussed those issues for years, and simplistic idiots like you are examples we use in those discussions.

  • Cattress||

    Pai is a liar and a corporate crony. Cronyism is not capitalism. Internet service access was a free market back when consumers bought it from Prodigy or AOL. Once internet access , whether wireless or fixed line, became a service of the Telcos and cable companies, competition became nearly obsolete. Only consumers living in generally wealthy urban areas have access to broadband from both a telco and a cable company. Telcos are shedding DSL customers and abandoning copperline POTS. And hey, that's fine if Verizon wants to pivot to slinging ads, but they need to pay back, in proportion, every tax break and subsidy they got under the condition of maintaining infrastructure like copper lines and poles that aren't maintained; funds to deploy fiber that never materialized, or did not meet the terms of the agreement for the tax break/subsidy. The same for AT&T, but they are a different issue. And once the telcos either pay back the tax payers, or meet their contractual terms, they must must work with the cable companies to repeal every single local level law that prevents any provider- municipal or otherwise- from entering the market, and ensure one-touch make ready legislation is universal. Once they no longer have laws that prevent competition, net neutrality can be rolled back. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter- none of them became the power houses they are because consumers chose them above a selection of other providers for superior service.

  • Sevo||

    Somewhere in that rant, I'm sure you found a reason that "regulation = freedom", but most of the rest of us see a wall of copy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Do you ever sit and wonder how the web possibly got from loading interlaced gifs at 9600 baud to HD streaming video without Net Neutrality?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Net neutrality" has been like a Rorschach test--what people see tells us more about them than what it is. The Obama administration played it like they did ObamaCare. People thought conflicting things about what it was when they implemented it.

    There were some "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" moments. Honest people still believe what Obama and his supporters in the media said about it when they were selling it, and they think anybody who doubted that was a birther, a racist, or someone profiting from big data.

    I don't think net neutrality is what you think it is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Check out this convoluted story:

    "The action immediately reignited a loud and furious fight over free speech and the control of the internet, pitting telecom giants like AT&T against internet giants like Google and Amazon, who warn against powerful telecom gatekeepers."

    ----New York Times

    https://tinyurl.com/leve4cf

    It's so hard to know which companies to support when Obama isn't here to tell us the good guys from the bad guys.

    I guess we'll just have to think for ourselves.

    Meanwhile, Trump's Justice Department is suing AT&T to stop its acquisition of Time Warner on antitrust grounds.

    I guess that means Trump is crazy, right? Doesn't he understand that the job of the President is to pick the good guys as winner and the bad guys as losers? At least you could count on Obama to be consistent that way. The winners weren't racist or homophobic, and the losers were . . .

    It was so nice when we didn't have to think for ourselves, and Obama was there to tell us right from wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    To whatever extent the big players are coming out against this, it's along the lines of the discussion we were having yesterday about low wage labor . . .

    Creative destruction is good news for everybody--except for those who are being destroyed. Innovation is likely to come at the expense of the big guy's dominance, and the profits that come by way of regulation, without further investment, look great when they're padding your cash flow statement.

    Would it be too much to give the election of Trump some credit for this?

    I'm reading elsewhere that he first came out against net neutrality back in 2014. Right from the start, Trump appointed people who apparently wanted this, and, sure enough, that's what they're delivering. Score one for Trump, amirite?

    I guess once Trump started enforcing immigration law, without a hint of reluctance, he became unforgivable around here?

    The other interesting story today is that Trump's DoJ is apparently going after Harvard because its affirmative action program is racist against Asians.

    I keep hearing that Trump is anti-free trade, yadda, yadda, yadda, but I haven't seen anything come of that, really. If and when anything on that front materializes, I'll be sure to oppose it. In the meantime, we need all the libertarian victories we can get--even if Donald Trump is the one delivering them.

  • chipper me timbers||

    This is a GIANT victory for Trump (and the people) and I think it may be the best outcome of his Presidency so far. I'm no Trump fan but this is great news.

  • Sevo||

    In the long run, Gorsuch (and possibly DeVos) *might* be a greater help for freedom, but it's close.

  • Mitsima||

    I've discarded my #NeverTrump sign. I don't mind eating a little crow when it's this good.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    One of the best comments on Net Neutrality ever:

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/12.....nt_2056448

  • Ken Shultz||

    I remember when a huge portion of the people you talked to believed that AOL's website was the entire internet. That's why their valuation was so high. There was talk later about how when people got "stuck" using other providers, the first thing they wanted to do was figure out how to get back to AOL's website. How would you ever figure out the weather in your city without AOL?

    It wasn't that long ago. It was 20 years ago.

    Yahoo's search page was cluttered with crap, I suspect, because they were trying to emulate AOL.

    Remember when Netscape was the hot IPO? You know, 'cause people aren't smart enough to change their home page, so Netscape's home page is the most valuable URL in the known universe--and that will never change.

    None of those companies survived, really. They're picking over what's left of Yahoo's corpse even as I type.

  • Sevo||

    "GM is the biggest corporation in the world. Someone (the gov't) should stop them!"
    "Japan is going to own the US!"
    "MicroSoft is too big! It dominates the computer world and must be stopped!"

    There is no lack of Chicken Littles on the left.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I was watching the old Milton Friedman on Donahue appearance on YouTube and laughed super hard when Donahue went on about whether Sears should be allowed to purchase KMart or if that would be monopolistic. Milton replied "at the rate they are growing, we should be asking can Kmart buy sears!?" Fast forward and 2004 Kmart does buy Sears. Fast forward again now both of them are going out of business.

    It just really put in perspective all these "chicken little" subjects that people harp on that in the long run are just silly. NN strikes me as one of those subjects.

  • Sevo||

    Remember when Time Inc, bought AOL and there was never going to be content other than Time Inc products and no delivery other than AOL!!!!!!!!!!
    I didn't short Time Inc, but I sure should have.

  • Cattress||

    Tech Dirt has lots of great articles about Net Neutrality for anyone who doesn't quite understand net neutrality, or is against it simply because it's an Obama era policy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Thank goodness somebody's there to tell us right from wrong.

    Otherwise, I wouldn't know what to think!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm against it because you idiots have no fucking clue how data transport actually works.

  • Ben of Houston||

    The primary problem is that all of American is either a monopoly or oligopoly situation.

    If we had the ability to choose between a wide range of providers, then I would agree. However, there is a reason that the two biggest ISPs, AT&T and Comcast, are two of the most hated companies in America yet still stay in business. We have no one else to turn to. The market can't speak in this sort of situation.

    If the administration was to raise that flag of "don't you dare or else we'll break you up" with the monopoly laws, I'd be more comfortable, and if we had sufficient competition for markets to work, I would agree with the article. However, with our current state of the telecommunications industry, I cannot support this.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If we had the ability to choose between a wide range of providers, then I would agree. However, there is a reason that the two biggest ISPs, AT&T and Comcast, are two of the most hated companies in America yet still stay in business

    There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from building the infrastructure for their own network if the demand is there. There are cities installing their own fiber networks because their residents want more bandwidth than they can get from Comcast.

    "Net neutrality" people have always missed the forest for the trees.

  • Ariel||

    First, take nothing I write as a slam on you because it isn't meant that way. Second, I resemble this: "no fucking clue how data transport actually works."

    So, I'm the guy at the end of that last mile in Phoenix (my last mile is that infrastructure between me and the company that owns it). We have Cox whose infrastructure goes back to cable TV (a granted monopoly) and CenturyLink, the copper guys (another monopoly going further back). How would a start-up ISP build that last mile of infrastructure when it involves tearing up streets for every 'last mile'? Remember, Cox owns the cable and CenturyLink owns the copper. So I don't think it's as simple as "absolutely nothing stopping someone from building the infrastructure for their own network if the demand is there." We aren't talking about Walmart building another store, we're talking about a Utility (yeah, it's become a Utility) that has to do a lot of damage to build it's own infrastructure to compete against others providing that same utility.

    Now, as for that remark I resemble, how about explaining like Feynman could explain physics the intricacies of data transmission?

    splitting

  • Ariel||

    Had to split, went over the 1500 character limit.

    What always just frosts my butt is the mantra of free market and competition will solve all problems, when the very companies themselves do everything to avoid both. They collude to fix prices or limit supply (something about companies making generic drugs...or, hell, what the chemical industry has done over and over again and really well), they sell things below cost to kill competition (dumping cars as one example, Internet Explorer as another). They don't want a free market, they want a market to their advantage. Capitalism is an economic system, it has never been a political ideology. It doesn't give a shit about the Scottish Empiricists or Lysander Spooner. It will co-opt from any political ideology as needed. It's strength is that. It's strength is that it isn't a philosophy or a political ideology but an economic system. Which has to be regulated so the sociopaths are kept in check

    'Free market' is a utopian pipe-dream like 'New Communist Man'. It's no better.

  • Sevo||

    "'Free market' is a utopian pipe-dream like 'New Communist Man'. It's no better."

    The rest of your imbecility is irrelevant; you've proven yourself to be not worth reading.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Garretsdaddio||

    I agree with what you are saying. I can buy electricity though from another supplier in my area but I still need to pay my local electric company to maintain the lines. I wondered if the same thing could be done with the cable and phone line? Pay one company for the bandwidth and the other to maintain the last mile line that is already is in the ground to my home. That could open up competition but I am sure big cable co would be against this if it was possible.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    One thing i wonder as well is if the wire issue might become increasingly irrelevant. We see in developing nations that they entire skip these wired infrastructures for cell. With the new 5G data rates are expected to be in the 100s of MB/s. Whether that is true or not I do not know.

    The other trend we have been seeing is smaller cellular technology. There are things people are doing that are much less intensive than huge cell towers, and they are becoming increasingly agile. So, I wonder if as this technology improves will it entirely circumvent the last-mile problem.

    Finally, we must ask ourselves why there are these monopolies to begin with.

  • Bra Ket||

    Follow the logic here:

    The point of a monopoly or collusion (oligopoly) isn't just to jerk you around and drink your sweet tears, the point is to make profit. Profit is via higher prices than would be possible if there was competition, or if they actually competed rather than colluding.

    Higher margins (i.e. higher profits) mean investors are making more money from their investment.

    This in turn means other people will want to invest in that space and make that kind of easy money.

    This new investment creates new competition.

    It doesn't matter what the cost of entry is, tearing up roads whatever. that is exactly what their investment is for. Which, by the definition of monopoly/oligopy, we already presumed above would pay off big-time since the products in that market sell for so much more than they should.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    How would a start-up ISP build that last mile of infrastructure when it involves tearing up streets for every 'last mile'?

    Three sentences in, and you're already begging the question.

    we're talking about a Utility (yeah, it's become a Utility) that has to do a lot of damage to build it's own infrastructure to compete against others providing that same utility.

    Dozens of tech billionaires, and none of them are willing to front the capital to do something that would allow them to smoke their competition? That should tell you something.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Now, as for that remark I resemble, how about explaining like Feynman could explain physics the intricacies of data transmission?

    An ISP's bandwidth is limited. Sure, they have a ton of capacity, but there's still a cap on what's actually available. When you have a content provider like Netflix that empirically floods the network at certain times every day with bandwidth demand, those packets are allocated so that grandma can still check her online bank account without waiting 15 minutes or more for her own content demand to get through the rest of the data traffic. People expect to access web sites in a relatively quick fashion, and if they can't get it in about 15 seconds or less, they get frustrated and complain about "slow internet". Except it's not "slow", it's getting shoved out by thousands of people watching Netflix between 7-10 pm every single night.

    So Cox allocates the packets--i.e., "throttles" the packet delivery--so those other people can have a decent internet experience. Comcast tried to accommodate them by setting up dedicated "fast lanes", or proprietary high-bandwidth pipes, but Netflix had to pay for them. They didn't want to do this, so they screamed "Net Neutrality!" because they know most people don't know how a network is actually managed--despite the fact they've been taking advantage of settlement-free interconnect for years.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    So it IS like a series of tubes! Poor Ted Stevens.

    (And I kid. I have no understanding of how it works and therefor take no position on this issue. Carry on!)

  • Sevo||

    Ben of Houston thinks more regulation is the solution to regulation.
    Noted.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    Actually, he never asserted that he was trying to "solve" regulation. Other than that, though, great reductionist straw-man argument. I might use that next time I'm explaining rhetorical fallacies.

  • Sevo||

    Joe Emenaker|11.21.17 @ 9:29PM|#
    "Actually, he never asserted that he was trying to "solve" regulation. Other than that, though, great reductionist straw-man argument. I might use that next time I'm explaining rhetorical fallacies."

    Actually, he posted:
    " However, there is a reason that the two biggest ISPs, AT&T and Comcast, are two of the most hated companies in America yet still stay in business. We have no one else to turn to."
    Which is largely a result of regulation, and suggests to those who CAN read that he sees more regulation (NN, for those who have difficulty reading) as a solution.

    So along with your strawman award (below), you get the "I'm a Lefty Who Cannot Read" award also.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Sevo, only when monopolies get into play. We don't want a repeat of the Gilded age.

    The proper solution would be to remove any restrictions that prevent the establishment of internet service providers. Then, when there is sufficient competition to enable market forces to act, the regulations can be relaxed.

    Taking off the training wheels is good. However, if you take them off when you don't have a back wheel on the bike, you aren't going to get very far.

  • Sevo||

    Ben of Houston|11.22.17 @ 10:20AM|#
    "Sevo, only when monopolies get into play."

    Ben, we don't HAVE monopolies. You are either lying or stupid.

  • Boba||

    But there are already several others. I use my Verizon phone data for access. I figure there are 7 in my area with the phone, cable, Hughes net, and 4 mobile companies. Most people these as well. 5g is coming in the next few years and will have lower latency and high speeds.

  • Ben of Houston||

    In the largest of cities, yes.
    However, in most of the country, no. Even in some areas of Houston, we have all of two providers for land line access. Wireless is a fundamentally different service, given the relatively miniscule data limits.

    Hughes Net might very well change the dynamics of this, but it's too early to tell. We need to make regulations based on the present reality, not what is currently science fiction.

  • Sevo||

    You realize you just proved you are a liar, don't you?
    "we have all of two providers for land line access. Wireless is a fundamentally different service, given the relatively miniscule data limits."
    So you have several choices, but one of which you don't like, so you arbitrarily call the other (two) a "monopoly". You just made up a new definition of the term, since you want free shit, slaver.

    "We need to make regulations based on the present reality, not what is currently science fiction.""
    That's an assertion. I say we do not need any regulation, so there.

  • fakename||

    > so you arbitrarily call the other (two) a "monopoly"

    You're right, it's a cartel, not a monopoly.

    > slaver

    There is nothing wrong with slavery qua slavery. If someone, of their own volition, wants to enter into a slave contract, you have no right to say they can't. Read up before you spout your anti-freedom rhetoric.

    http://www.ellerman.org/wp-con......scan_.pdf

  • Free Oregon||

    Will this change have any effect on Google's censorship?

  • Garretsdaddio||

    No, net neutrality laws only applied to your ISP.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    He tries to argue that Net Neutrality just wants to take free data away from poor consumers and those benevolent companies which want to give it to them. Net Neutrality is about preventing *discrimination* on the part of the internet providers. If the gov't barred Walmart from having a special express lane for white people, Pai would be arguing that the gov't is trying to stamp out speedy check-out.

  • Sevo||

    "Net Neutrality is about preventing *discrimination* on the part of the internet providers."
    Bullshit. It's about requiring all use to be charged the same. It's price-fixing, no more, no less.

    "If the gov't barred Walmart from having a special express lane for white people, Pai would be arguing that the gov't is trying to stamp out speedy check-out."
    Ok, so you are an idiot. Weakest strawman award goes to this jackoff.

  • Bra Ket||

    They don't "discriminate" on the basis of the customer's ethnic identity, they would discriminate on the basis of what they will pay.

    So your example needs an adjustment. It's more like if walmart wasn't allowed to charge different prices for different products. Now you see why we call you socialists for this nonsense?

  • fafalone||

    No, it's like if Walmart was the only place you could buy certain products because of a government-granted monopoly, and they wanted to charge companies to sell it to you, and also could sell their own version for less. That would be all fine and dandy if not for the government-granted monopoly part.

  • Bra Ket||

    It's not a monopoly though. People pretend it is by narrowly defining the "market" as communication of data at some speed connected to my house via a certain technology. But there's cable, twisted pair, fiber, wireless. And the brick and mortar stores compete in that market too (ask Borders).

    A true monopoly can charge whatever they want. Where have prices ever gone up rather than down from these new technologies?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't understand how you state that this is all caused by a government granted monopoly, and then assert NN as a solution which is another massive government intervention. Particularly with regulating it as a utility which adds considerable power to the government to encourage further monopoly.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Net Neutrality is about preventing *discrimination* on the part of the internet providers"

    And the Kolkhoz is about preventing discrimination on the part of the bread distributor.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity,"

    Because that's *always* what happens when you allow vertical monopolies. OK, Pai... give us some numbers. What's this *explosion* going to look like? You use superlatives when pitching this, hoping we all forget when, years later, it didn't do any of what you planned.

  • Sevo||

    "Because that's *always* what happens when you allow vertical monopolies."

    First, lets call your bullshit on "monopolies"; there are none. Except for those granted by a government.
    Secondly, let's call your bullshit on "allow"; if a lack of regulation "allowed' monopolies, we'd have them. Just in case you missed the memo, NN was never in force.
    Finally, only slaver assholes expect those who promote freedom to predict how innovation is going to progress. The rest of us leave that to the efforts of those who are going to profit by the results. Which is pretty much how we got the internet.

  • fakename||

    In your own words, you realize you just proved you are a liar, don't you?
    "First, lets call your bullshit on "monopolies"; there are none. Except for those granted by a government. [...] if a lack of regulation "allowed' monopolies, we'd have them."
    That's a contradiction. You're contradicting yourself. Do you not understand that no one respects anything you say when you're so blatantly inconsistent? There's also duopolies and ISO cartels, for the record.

    > Which is pretty much how we got the internet.

    The internet was literally invented by the US government as a DARPA project. You're SO stupid!

  • Sevo||

    What would possibly have caused banning?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The one time I got banned it was because the spam system registered my posts as spam. Maybe that happened to him? If he needs to he can e-mail the site and the sys-admin will clear it up.

  • CppThis||

    I don't trust either the corporations or the government to be anything resembling 'neutral' after eons of bad-faith behavior by both entities, so I never cared about NN. Well, except for the vague foreboding feeling that if it got enforced my low-end DSL bill would triple because suddenly my occasional evening burst traffic is in the same bucket as the 24/7 torrent fiends and priced accordingly. If supporters really care about being free of shenanigans, their time would be better spent inventing a better alternative to the heavily centralized Tier 1 peering system, like a mesh of wireless routers or something. Something that can't be wholesale spied on, locked down, milked or thought-policed by a couple of bad actors with good political/business connections.

  • Sevo||

    That's nice, but the discussion has to do with government price fixing; AKA the falsely named Net Neutrality.
    I'm hoping for no price fixing. And you?

  • Garretsdaddio||

    If a legal website is up I should be able to reach it at a respectable rate that I am paying for. We are behind other countries when it comes to bandwidth speed. We live in the country that invented the internet, this is shameful. Net neutrality did not make this happen, croney capitalism did. I don't like big monopolies with ties to government officials. How does getting rid of net neutrality fix this? It does not. In my area the only option is Comcast. What if they decide to throttle hulu so I am forced to go back and watch shows on cable? During the election when I paid my Comcast bill online they forced me to watch a "I'm with her" statement when I logged in. I had no choice but to accept that statement, no other provider in my area to switch to.(this is not free markets) Google hid all campaign material from Bernie, Trump and Cruz automatically put them into my spam folder. I did however receive at least 6 emails daily from the Hillary camp just fine though but I am sure that was just a glitch ;-) So we are going to allow companies to censor the messages we get, the web sites we visit? Facebook and Twitter are already throwing up free speech roadblocks. Internet traffic should be treated equally just like people should be treated equally. The thing is I voted for Trump and I hate this guy running the FCC. Perhaps they will learn when campaign donation websites are blocked by companies like Comcast that have their own political agenda.

  • Sevo||

    Garretsdaddio|11.21.17 @ 11:27PM|#
    "If a legal website is up I should be able to reach it at a respectable rate that I am paying for."
    Screw you and a claim to some "respectable rate"; total bullshit. Pay for what your get.
    "We are behind other countries when it comes to bandwidth speed. We live in the country that invented the internet, this is shameful."
    Lefty horse shit.
    Fuck off, slaver. Government price fixing NEVER made more people free.

  • Garretsdaddio||

    I am paying for 200 Mbps I expect to get close to that. I don't expect for this page to take a full minute to load because my ISP decided they don't like this page.

    I am far from a lefty LOL that's the first I was call that. As far as internet speed goes ..... https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

    Sorry but as long as we have monopolies they can charge what they want and I am forced to pay it or go without internet access and be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to finding jobs or learning. I would love another ISP startup to come into my town and run fiber or cable. But that will never happen and I live only 50 miles away from a major city. I don't believe in price fixing but competition is needed. I don't see how getting rid of net neutrality will bring competition.

  • Sevo||

    "I am paying for 200 Mbps I expect to get close to that. I don't expect for this page to take a full minute to load because my ISP decided they don't like this page."
    You are paying for "Up To" X, and your Honda really doesn't get 50MPG, either.

    "I am far from a lefty LOL that's the first I was call that. As far as internet speed goes ..... https://www.speedtest.net/global-index"
    Uh, OK, lefty. What is that all about?

    "Sorry but as long as we have monopolies they can charge what they want..."
    Sorry, we don't have any of those, unless you live in a locale where the city government has granted a monopoly.
    Now, did you have any comment worth consideration, or just lefty whining?

  • Garretsdaddio||

    "I am far from a lefty LOL that's the first I was call that. As far as internet speed goes ..... https://www.speedtest.net/global-index"
    Uh, OK, lefty. What is that all about?

    When I made the claim that other countries have better internet speeds you called it "Lefty horse shit"

  • Sevo||

    "When I made the claim that other countries have better internet speeds you called it "Lefty horse shit""
    Yes, I did. It is.

  • fafalone||

    "unless you live in a locale where the city government has granted a monopoly." So, all of America. Got it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Go back to your gopher hole, redditard. There's a reason people like you end up shooting schoolkids.

  • Sevo||

    fafalone|11.22.17 @ 1:35AM|#
    ""unless you live in a locale where the city government has granted a monopoly." So, all of America."

    Gee, and not far above, another lefty asshole was griping that free shit was hard to get in rural areas.
    Get lost, lefty asshole.

  • DaveSs||

    Page loading time is affected by more than just your connection.

    Its also affected by how fast the page's host actually sends data, how many extra domains are contacted to serve ads, server side processing, client side processing, loading of plugins and so forth.

    These days the client side processing is getting a bit out of hand. Much of what you think of as slow page loads has a lot to do with the client side processing and establishing connections to all the additional servers for advertising and google analytics.

  • Mitsima||

    To say nothing about issues with CDNs; whenever a page is slow, first look at the CDN and associated pages that must load first.

    The rest of Garretsdaddio's screed made be dismissed as uninformed by his equating equality of traffic with equality of people. That's not how it works; not. even. close.

  • fakename||

    Objectively untrue. Take literally anything that the government subsidizes, from cotton, to flood insurance, etc. Those industries would have either collapsed or been rendered unavailable to anybody but the super-rich had they not been "price fixed". You don't have the freedom to participate in a market if that market doesn't exist in the first place.

    > Pay for what your get.

    If what you get violates a contract that your provider agreed to, then you're not getting what you paid for. If you paid for it, then the company has the obligation, both morally and legally, to provide the service they sold to you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Internet traffic should be treated equally just like people should be treated equally.

    That's not how network management works, big guy.

  • Garretsdaddio||

    I am just trying to say a site like Drudge or the opposite Huffington Post should be not PURPOSELY be slowed down or blocked because the ISP does not like it.

  • Sevo||

    "I am just trying to say a site like Drudge or the opposite Huffington Post should be not PURPOSELY be slowed down or blocked because the ISP does not like it."
    Do you have any evidence they have been "slowed down"?

  • Garretsdaddio||

    Net neutrality laws prevent this from happening. No I have no proof this happens except Comcast has blocked illegal streaming content in the past and if it is illegal I have no beef with that. My original post I showed examples of how big tech, Google, Facebook, Twitter censor content they disagree with, mostly conservative voices. Net neutrality laws do not affect them though they are allowed do this because net neutrality only applies to ISP's. Do I have proof Google only allowed Hillary campaign email onto my account when all others went to spam on purpose? No I don't but it did happen and I think the reason why should be investigated despite it being legal. I think customers should be aware of manipulation. Google was also caught changing search results to favor Hillary during the election. I did however change my email provider after that and had no more problems. No law states that Google has to deliver email to me. Without net neutrality laws ISP's could do the same thing by censoring out web sites they disagree with. In effect without any law ISP's would be able to censor like China or North Korea does. The only difference would be instead of big government controlling what you see it would be big ISP's controlling what you see much like TV news does.

  • esteve7||

    line break make things easier to read, just a tip.

    "i have no proof this happens".... so it's NOT an issue is what you are saying?

    the NN side sites crap like this all the time... your ISP COULD do this or COULD do that.... yet in the 25+ years of the internet before NN, they can't site that ever happening.

  • Homple||

    Lots of things that never happened in 25+ years happened later.

    Just sayin'.

  • Texasmotiv||

    So we should preemptively regulate against any possibility? Even when it could prevent pro-consumer outcomes (ex. T-mobile zero rate video)?

  • Sevo||

    So Garretsdaddio is bullshitting?
    Imagine my surprise.

  • Brendan||

    If a legal website is up I should be able to reach it at a respectable rate that I am paying for.

    Your paid speed isn't the only factor here. If the site you're reaching is on another ISPs network, there are other bottlenecks, including interconnection points.

    We are behind other countries when it comes to bandwidth speed. We live in the country that invented the internet, this is shameful.

    That depends what part of the country you're talking about. Many other comparison countries have wonderfully fast internet in their major cities, just like in the US and very slow rural speeds, just like the US.

  • Bra Ket||

    I'd say building big national-pride-never-going-to-make-a-profit boondoggles like high-speed rail and optical fibers to nowhere are the domain of central planning and socialism. Though I'm sure their technology overwhelmingly comes from here.

    Also the US is much larger and more sparsely-populated than any other developed country, hence we have the most cars per capita. So it's a bad comparison anyway.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If a legal website is up I should be able to reach it at a respectable rate that I am paying for.

    Do you know what happens when a website gets more traffic than the server can handle?

  • Sevo||

    Man, this issue draws out more imbeciles than an abortion thread.

  • fafalone||

    I know, look at how much you've shitted up the thread.

  • Sevo||

    "I know, look at how much you've shitted up the thread."

    Calling bullshit is not easy, bullshitter.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's on Drudge.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Don't pretend that government didn't arbitrate digital right of ways. There's nothing free about how the right of ways used by phone and cable, or the bandwidth assignments of the federal government.

    Particular services are going whole hog for content censorship. Letting the infrastructure providers do the same is the end of digital free speech.

    The roads are content neutral. The mail is content neutral. Digital roads are the latest communication avenue. They overwhelm others in scale. If they're not content neutral we're fucked.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're already content neutral--what people are griping about is that they think Comcast is artificially limiting Netflix out of some nefarious scheme to limit "free speech", rather than the simple fact that bandwidth demand has to be managed and streaming services are bandwidth hogs.

  • Bra Ket||

    Both mail and roads have varying prices for various users depending on what they are using them for. Both are also provided by govt agencies. Are you a communist who believes that this is how everything should be provided?

  • timmyh13||

    He's blowing smoke and using standard political doublespeak to look like he is making valid points.
    But if you don't believe that dissolving net neutrality is going to cause major price increases to end-users
    and massive slowdowns of data you should go back to listening to the radio for your information and sending letters by US Postal to communicate!!!

  • Sevo||

    Assertion masquerading as an argument. At worst, you're suggesting you might have to pay for what you use.
    Boo hoo.

  • sudon't||

    "Pai believes that market competition for customers will prove far more effective in developing better and cheaper services than regulators deciding what is best for the sector."

    What competition? Like just about everyone else in the US, I have exactly one choice for high-speed internet.

  • Sevo||

    So?
    Assuming you're not lying about your circumstance as you are about 'everybody else', did you get some memo saying you are guaranteed X service for a certain price?

  • Danathar||

    Ok...Here is the thing. I'm all for de-regulation....as long AS THERE IS A MARKET!!

    As long as last mile ISP's are defacto monopolies at the local level due to local franchise agreements, there is practically speaking NO competition. I have Comcast, I don't like their data caps. My options are......NOTHING. My county has mandated that Comcast is the only game in town. I can't choose another ISP.

    Until that changes the current de-regulation the FCC is doing will make things worse for competition, not better.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I have Comcast, I don't like their data caps.

    What an ironic statement, considering an NN supporter up-thread said the solution to maintaining NN in a limited bandwidth world was data caps.

    Thanks for proving my point that NN and "unlimited bandwidth" are incompatible entities, because YOU don't think the inevitable restrictions should apply to you.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm all for de-regulation....as long AS THERE IS A MARKET!!"

    THERE IS A MARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • OMGSeriously||

    Just about every free country maintains neutrality when it comes to the, again, GLOBAL PUBLIC INTERNET. Interestingly, even Russia, yeah, that's right, Russia says you can't dictate how and where traffic goes or interfere with it unless it threatens the network.

    With NN in place, it is impossible for a government interest, via leverage with big corporations and lobbies to dictate that say, all Murdoch's news properties are faster, more reliable and well, not blocked - not ever. Without it, isn't it not only possible, but practical from a suppression of voice standpoint?

    It's a much bigger picture than I think any of you really realize. This isn't a battle for control and freedom in the private sector.

    No. This is a battle to control what we can access, what news and information gets to us easily, cheaply and quickly, and what is tiered, or throttled, or arbitrarily considered inappropriate.

    Access to the internet - not like telephone? Not like power? Not a utility? Grow up, this is 2017, half the voice runs over the internet backbone now anyway. It *is* a utility, and like a utility it needs to prevent corporations from teaming up and abusing it.

    Net Neutrality isn't about what you can do as an ISP - it is about protecting an open global network for everyone and not turning it into a ridiculous corporate sham or worse, a high speed railway to censorship, big brother and worse.

    Seriously people, doesn't anyone read between the lines here?

  • OMGSeriously||

    Comment is a bit wonky since I guess ASCII characters are a freaking commodity now and I had the audacity to post more than 1500 of them. Shame.

  • Bra Ket||

    There's no law of nature that says a "utility" needs to be a govt-regulated monopoly. It's just an excuse based on it being supposedly-cheaper to do it that way versus having multiple sets of infrastructure competing, and corrupt govts always jump at excuses to create monopolies.

    Speaking of which, using Russia as an example is really compelling when it comes to good governance practices...

    If Murdoch was only in business to brainwash everyone rather than actually make money, a competitor would come along to make money by giving people what they want, and beat him.

  • Sevo||

    "Grow up, this is 2017"

    Oh, gee! What an argument for price fixing.
    Get lost.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    it is about protecting an open global network for everyone and not turning it into a ridiculous corporate sham or worse, a high speed railway to censorship

    Oh, bullshit--you freaks try to dress it up that way, but a quick glance upthread shows that it all boils down to your ignorant belief that packet allocation is some nefarious corporate plot instead of a basic principle of network management.

    Grow up, this is 2017

    "OI IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR!!" Leave that John Oliver shit at the gloryhole where it belongs.

  • Ragu||

    You're entirely correct. But it still amazes me how many people on this board would gladly trust ISP's like Comcast, ATT, etc. to not censor news or throttle traffic if it can make those companies an extra buck. Removing NN just puts us one step closer to Big Brother, but most NN and Trump supporters never read 1984 anyway.

  • Sevo||

    Ragu|11.22.17 @ 3:44PM|#
    "You're entirely correct. But it still amazes me how many people on this board would gladly trust ISP's like Comcast, ATT, etc. to not censor news or throttle traffic if it can make those companies an extra buck."

    Summary:
    Ragu is a slimy lefty who is pissed if he has to pay for what he uses, and is willing to use the power of the government to get others to pay for his free shit.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Right, because two years ago, the internet was a consumer wasteland and no one could access their content instantaneously.

    Grow up and learn how networks are managed.

  • Ron||

    it seems that this whole net neutrality thing falls down to the most stupidest thing i can think of, allowing everyone the "ability" to watch stupid movies at some imagined rate when it should be about preserving freedom of speech which is not actually a right when it requires someone else's money

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Well that escalated quickly.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Every time this topic gets posted, a bunch of incel commies from Reddit migrate over here to demonstrate just how easily manipulated and fooled they are by, ironically, a buzzword pimped by a giant publically-traded media corporation that got butthurt it couldn't flood ISPs with bandwidth demand and push out other users..

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I gotta admit. NN has great marketing.

    "Net Neutrality" is a great slogan. I mean, who's against neutrality?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's right out of the George Lakoff School of Shameless Propoganda, er, "issue-framing". Pick your favorite government-authority increasing policy, describe it in a way that disguises its true intention, and hope enough normies fall for it that it becomes socially acceptable.

  • Sevo||

    The "Affordable Health Care (you can keep ypur doctor for shure!!) Act"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    God, I hope you're being ironic using "incel".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If it's true, it doesn't matter if it's ironic or not.

  • cew006||

    I understand defenders of Cable Industry when they complain about Americans' general lack of knowledge regarding finite bandwidth and allocation, but then this would be the ONLY INDUSTRY in our free-ish market where year-over-year increases in the demand for the offered product or service were met with complaining and dithering rather than the specific businesses expanding their enterprise to meet the demands of their customers and both increase their profits and the satisfy the costumers' demands. [run-on; sorry, not sorry] So what is the cable company's incentive NOT to expand, as Pai alludes to? That needs to be explored. I smell some fish in all of this.

  • Sevo||

    "So what is the cable company's incentive NOT to expand, as Pai alludes to?"

    Perhaps they can't bill the costs?
    From the article:
    "Outside of a recession we've never seen that sort of investment go down year over year. But we did in 2015, after these regulations were adopted."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    met with complaining and dithering rather than the specific businesses expanding their enterprise to meet the demands of their customers and both increase their profits and the satisfy the costumers' demands

    Are you still using dial-in to access the internet? Should people who use more of a service not pay more for that service? You seem to be implying that if you're not getting 1 GB up/down speeds for $15 a month, you're getting robbed.

    And if all these tech billionaires won't invest the capital required to set up universal fiber coast-to-coast, which would absolutely kill their competition, shouldn't that tell you something?

  • Texasmotiv||

    They couldn't put coast to coast fiber in unless they spent double the capital costs on petitioning and convincing every city council or county commission board across the country to allow them to bury their cable or place the line on their poles. Which could get held up by some rando commie that opposes it for political gain or some scummy repub who sold his soul to the incumbent telco for fundraising money.

    No one except google or maybe Elon musk is silly enough to want that headache.

  • Dr Schlotkin||

    I'm happy to free the ISPs of all regulations just as soon as I am free to choose a different ISP. As long as my choices are limited to 1 or 2 ISPs Until then, I prefer the ISP to not be allowed to censor the only connection I have.
    If the reason for the monopoly is government protection of it, then that is the real discussion we need to be having - lets let more people lay down more cable and have a true market that has no excuse for over-regulation.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm happy to free the ISPs of all regulations just as soon as I am free to choose a different ISP"
    Which you can do.
    So buzz off.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's not censorship, it's data allocation so I can punk you on this website while you're pirating a dozen movies on bittorrent.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Update:

    As soon as Ajit Pai made his announcement yesterday, my connection speed dropped to 14.4K.

    He literally destroyed the Internet. Literally.

  • josh||

    There was a time not long ago when the notion that we'd let the government run the internet was seen as a non starter. Even people who loved government thought the idea absurd. Of course, with time, the demonization of the 1%, and by extension corporate America, became so mainstream a philosophy that the government became the good guy in the war against the real enemy. That, and a fancy slogan (there's a reason that legislation isn't referred to as CR...etc, but rather "The Patriot Act") has made most people convinced there's not even any reasonable argument against NN.

    I can't claim to be very articulate on this issue (technical difficulties), and I'm not a libertarian, but it seems reasonably straightforward that NN is a scam.

  • Richard Grieco||

    I'm not sure why the left is raising such a fuss -

    If the FCC's lack of regulation turns the internet into the dystopia that our progressive friends tell us it will become, politicians will be all too eager to regulate it, if for no other reason than to score a cheap political victory that clearly is already popular with the masses (even in the absence of the dystopia).

    If nothing significant changes (which is my prediction), politicians will still be eager to regulate it because there is such a ground swell of support from the John Olivers, Washington Posts, Netflixes, etc. It's a cheap political win / bogeyman. They'll say, "Yeah, nothing significant changed, but imagine how much more awesome things would have been if we had net neutrality!"

    Even if the FCC's current course ends up being a wild success, I would say the odds are more likely than not that the next chairman will come in and reverse course. The government's job is to regulate the shit out of everything. Just because one guy decided to buck the trend for a couple of years doesn't mean it will be that way forever.

    So take a chill pill lefties. We're still marching down your favored path of increased regulations - this is just us taking a breather. We'll be back at it again in no time.

  • Richard Grieco||

    I'm not sure why the left is raising such a fuss -

    If the FCC's lack of regulation turns the internet into the dystopia that our progressive friends tell us it will become, politicians will be all too eager to regulate it, if for no other reason than to score a cheap political victory that clearly is already popular with the masses (even in the absence of the dystopia).

    If nothing significant changes (which is my prediction), politicians will still be eager to regulate it because there is such a ground swell of support from the John Olivers, Washington Posts, Netflixes, etc. It's a cheap political win / bogeyman. They'll say, "Yeah, nothing significant changed, but imagine how much more awesome things would have been if we had net neutrality!"

    Even if the FCC's current course ends up being a wild success, I would say the odds are more likely than not that the next chairman will come in and reverse course. The government's job is to regulate the shit out of everything. Just because one guy decided to buck the trend for a couple of years doesn't mean it will be that way forever.

    So take a chill pill lefties. We're still marching down your favored path of increased regulations - this is just us taking a breather. We'll be back at it again in no time.

  • Ragu||

    So many of Pai's claims sound like typical corporate talking points it sounds like he's hyping at another Verizon shareholder meeting...just like the old days for him.

    And on the surface, so many of his claims are lies or just irrelevant that it's pretty clear he's playing a game of smoke and mirrors here, and reframing NN (which protects consumers access to a unfiltered net) as "stifling government regulation", when it's actually fairly simple consumer protection from monopolistic and censoring practices of ISP's.

  • Ragu||

    Still with me? Let's go through some claims. The first thing he said is there wasn't a problem before NN. Lie. Obviously, Netflix and Comcast had a major problem. You can side with Comcast on this, but if i pay both Comcast and Netflix for services, I expect them to already have that relationship worked out. And if Comcast is my last mile ISP, they are to ultimately to blame for not delivering the service I paid for and defrauding me. Either way, Pai lied that there wasn't a problem.

    Pai claims there has been a slow down or lack of innovation in ISP infrastructure. That may be true in rural areas, but that's b/c they are rural and the payback on investment is long and slow. That economic reality has always existed and has nothing to do with NN. On the contrary, my last mile ISP just installed fiber in my urban neighborhood during NN and the O administration. So once again, his claim that ISP infrastructure was stifled is and Obama is to blame is just a blatent lie.

  • XM||

    There's no incentive to invest in infrastructure or expand when these companies are forced to pay the same rate to everyone.

    You already pay for plenty of things that involve moving parts and middlemen that you have no control over. This isn't new.

    Net Neutrality will not result in a thriving markets. You think some indie ISPs and other companies will risk big money to challenge the big boys who already "control" certain market, when their upside is just as capped as the competition's? You probably can't undercut Verizon or Comcast on price if you don't have your infrastructure. Markets don't exist for the sake of competition. I think some people are confused on that concept.

    The notion that there could 20 different ISPs in America is far fetched to begin with.

  • SGetty||

    How would repealing Net Neutrality incentivize investment or expansion of infrastructure either, though? It seems like you're conflating internet service providers with online services. Net Neutrality won't solve the problem of monopolistic control and practices by ISPs - no ISP is going to be able to challenge Comcast, for example, whether NN is in place or not, because they own the delivery networks. That's separate from the playing field that companies and services have online, though. *That's* the market that Net Neutrality protects - so Comcast can't, say, partner with Amazon and allow you to shop with them for free, but charge a monthly fee to go anywhere else, despite the data not costing them any more to deliver. And the kind of changes that *are* in the works for internet and data services networks, like 5G (which Pai mentions above), are again part of physical infrastructure which would be minimally impacted by NN either way.

    Repealing NN is heavily tilted towards promoting anticompetitive practices and entrenching existing big players. It seems that many here are saying that government decisions helped to create the monopolies that are Comcast and other providers in the first place, and that NN is a "government solution to fix a government-created problem" - I have some sympathy to that argument, but that doesn't in any way justify ignoring the present situation.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    How would repealing Net Neutrality incentivize investment or expansion of infrastructure either, though?

    Was infrastructure not built before NN?

  • Mark22||

    Net Neutrality won't solve the problem of monopolistic control and practices by ISPs - no ISP is going to be able to challenge Comcast, for example, whether NN is in place or not, because they own the delivery networks.

    Under net neutrality rules, there is no incentive to challenge Comcast because all you can do is provide the same "neutral" service, and your costs are probably higher. Net neutrality creates monopolies.

    Once people start offering non-neutral services, there is much more room for competition. If Comcast chooses to provide only restricted services, there is a market for neutral ISPs. If Comcast keep providing neutral services, there is a market for specialty ISPs.

  • Mark22||

    Net Neutrality won't solve the problem of monopolistic control and practices by ISPs - no ISP is going to be able to challenge Comcast, for example, whether NN is in place or not, because they own the delivery networks.

    Under net neutrality rules, there is no incentive to challenge Comcast because all you can do is provide the same "neutral" service, and your costs are probably higher. Net neutrality creates monopolies.

    Once people start offering non-neutral services, there is much more room for competition. If Comcast chooses to provide only restricted services, there is a market for neutral ISPs. If Comcast keep providing neutral services, there is a market for specialty ISPs.

  • Mark22||

    And if Comcast is my last mile ISP, they are to ultimately to blame for not delivering the service I paid for and defrauding me.

    Well, your contract can change. So, if Comcast wants to get creative, in the future, they may double or triple your monthly charges for an "all you can eat" Internet offering that you like, while my parents get their $4.95/month E-mail and web browsing-only basic Internet service with a 10 Gbyte volume limit.

    And that's a good thing, because right now, you are effectively "defrauding" my parents (you are using regulatory capture to force others to subsidize your Internet usage).

  • Ragu||

    Also, there's no reason to believe repealing NN will benefit hardline infrastructure development in rural areas. Those areas will best be served by wireless or sattelite connectivity to the net, not fiber or cable. That won't change or improve by repealing NN, so his whole arguement to the contrary is moot, and a distraction.

    And oddly enough, Pai thinks "ISP transparency" is a viable substitute for consumer protection from ISP's throttling traffic, upcharging for specific content, or outright blocking and censorship. His proposal basically says, "as long as your ISP discloses to you that they are going to screw you, that's ok, and will be legal". No thanks Pai, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. And the FTC will only have enforcement over behavior NOT DISCLOSED BY ISPs. So as long as they tell you they are going to rip you off, in 4pt type inside the 10 pages of Terms of Service you will never read, they can legally rip you off.

    Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc. have received MILLIONS in federal subsidies to build out the networks that they now want to micro-parcel and monitize. And in many cases, they took those subsidies and DIDN'T BUILD the network infrastructure based on dubious hardship claims. Yet they all posted record profits last year.

  • SGetty||

    You're wasting your time trying to reason people out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. Ironic, considering the name of this site.

  • Sevo||

    SGetty|11.22.17 @ 7:46PM|#
    "You're wasting your time trying to reason people out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. Ironic, considering the name of this site."

    Poor, poor SGetty! Get called on your lefty bullshit and now the best you can do is whine?
    So sad!

  • Mark22||

    Also, there's no reason to believe repealing NN will benefit hardline infrastructure development in rural areas.

    Good! Let's drop the federal subsidies for rural areas too.

    So as long as they tell you they are going to rip you off, in 4pt type inside the 10 pages of Terms of Service you will never read, they can legally rip you off.

    Oh, who are you kidding? The people up in arms about the repeal of net neutrality are bandwidth hogging nerds who are unhappy that they may be charged for what they use now. That isn't even in 4pt type anywhere, but those people are ripping off people like my parents who are doing little more than read news and E-mail yet pay full price.

    His proposal basically says, "as long as your ISP discloses to you that they are going to screw you, that's ok, and will be legal".

    Good!

    Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc. have received MILLIONS in federal subsidies to build out the networks that they now want to micro-parcel and monitize.

    So because a--holes like you keep arguing for more federal subsidies, we should now also give in to the regulation a--holes like you want to impose on the Internet?

  • Ragu||

    It doesn't get any better people. I'm not a liberal, or a conservative, I don't buy into 2-party political control, but I know when I'm being lied to, and I've know a corporate handout when I see one. Net neutrality shouldn't be a partisan issue. Everyone uses the net and whether you acknowledge it or believe it, you are already benefiting from NN rules in place. Opposing NN because it was put in place during the last administration is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not an improvement.

    Summary: Pai is full of crap, and keeping NN is largely a free speech issue, something most Americans supposedly hold dear.

  • Sevo||

    "Summary: Pai is full of crap, and keeping NN is largely a free speech issue, something most Americans supposedly hold dear."

    Summary:
    Ragu IS a lefty who really wants others to pay for his free shit, but it trying to hide it.
    Buzz off.

  • XM||

    Everyone uses the net, but some people use more (data) of it than others.

    Let's be honest here. This is really about Netflix fanatics demanding "equal" treatment despite the ungodly amount of streaming / downloading they do. All this talk about breaking up monopolies and protecting competition and free speech is mostly smoke and mirrors.

    I'm not on Netflix. My experience on the PS online is a mixed bag, but that's an issue for people with the greatest connection. Other than that, My internet is fine. I frequently visit far right sites like Breitbart (which gets more traffic than ESPN) and have rarely experienced any slowdown. "ISP censorship" is a fantasy for the most part.

    In the days of yore we would watch movies or shows on DVDs or DVRs and no one else would be affected. Netflix and smartphones enabled streaming on the go on multiple devices. As access to content increases, service would be affected if technology and innovation don't keep up with the crushing demand.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm not a liberal, or a conservative,

    Whenever I see someone claim this, it usually means, "I'm a liberal, I'm just going to spew a bunch of lefty talking points while claiming otherwise."

  • Mark22||

    Opposing NN because it was put in place during the last administration is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not an improvement.

    I oppose FCC imposition of net neutrality rules because it is a bad idea, because it is unjust, and because it is rent seeking and regulatory capture, pure and simple.

    keeping NN is largely a free speech issue, something most Americans supposedly hold dear

    It is precisely because I hold free speech dear that I do not want the FCC adjudicating what can and cannot be said on the Internet. For some reason, you think giving the FCC that power contributes to free speech, which is idiotic.

  • fakename||

    Net Neutrality is in no way rent-seeking. That doesn't even make sense.

    > I do not want the FCC adjudicating what can and cannot be said on the Internet.

    Net Neutrality does not give the FCC this ability.

    You don't know what Net Neutrality is. If you want, you can just read the regulation. It's not a secret or anything. All it does is classify internet access as a common carrier service, just like land-line telephone service. This doesn't give the FCC the power to dictate what can be said over the internet any more than they already have the power to dictate what can be said over a phone line.

  • Jason Sensation||

    In Canada the CRTC is the equivalent of the FCC.

    THey are strengthening Net Neutrality.

    There is a reason why...

    In 2005, workers for the telecommunications company Telus were on strike. Some workers set up a website that including discussions suggesting jamming Telus's phone lines and showed pictures of people who crossed the union picket lines. Note that whether or not you think that's a shitty thing to do, it was a legal thing to do.

    Telus responded by completely blocking their subscribers from accessing that website.

    In doing that, Telus (a major telecom here) violated net neutrality in the most spectacular way possible by blocking a website because they disagreed with the protected speech it was engaging in. That led the CRTC to start taking net neutrality very seriously, and it made opposition to that push virtually impossible by completely undermining the most frequently repeated argument against net neutrality ("we don't need it because nobody's violating it anyways") and demonstrating why it's important all in one fell swoop.
    Unfortunately for the US, that's not really a lesson you've undergone. The violation that kicked off discussion of the subject there was far less offensive to most people (the ISP had blocked VOIP traffic rather than censoring speech they disagreed with) and the telecom involved was a small local outfit rather than a large national one, so there's no solid and obvious precedent there that can be used to clearly demonstrate the problem.

  • Sevo||

    So something that happened once in Canada 12 years ago means I should pay for your free shit?
    What a wonderful argument to show you should be ignored.
    Buzz off.

  • Jason Sensation||

    Actually you uneducated cunt, its a lot more than that.

    Without net neutrality:
    -AT&T censored a concert stream by Pearl Jam because Eddie Vedder criticized your god, George W. Bush.

    -Verizon blocked messages from NARAL.

    -AT&T limited the use of FaceTime.

    Of course, to know this happened, you would have to know shit about shit, and not just be some far right Jesus freak Rush Limbaugh addict.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Oh shit, a private company limited the content available on their service? Quelle horror!

    I suppose you'd bitch about ISIS having their propaganda blocked as well.

    Of course, to know this happened, you would have to know shit about shit, and not just be some far right Jesus freak Rush Limbaugh addict.

    Go back to jerking off to child porn, redditard.

  • Jason Sensation||

    You just compared Pearl Jam to Isis...

    Fuch off.

  • Sevo||

    Jason Sensation|11.23.17 @ 12:07AM|#
    "You just compared Pearl Jam to Isis..."

    No, he just compared your hope for free shit with terrorists. And an apt comparison, given the lefty tendency toward mass murder, you stinking pile of lefty shit.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You just compared Pearl Jam to Isis...

    Get some lessons in reading comprehension, you waste of carbon molecules. Sucks when someone points out the holes in your argument, doesn't it?

  • fakename||

    > a private company limited the content available on their service

    Using copper and wire that exist as part of my cities infrastructure, paid for by my taxes. It's not theirs, they didn't pay for it, but for some reason they control it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They control the content, not the transmission medium, dumbshit.

  • Sevo||

    Jason Sensation|11.22.17 @ 6:57PM|#
    "Actually you uneducated cunt, its a lot more than that.
    Without net neutrality:
    "-AT&T censored a concert stream by Pearl Jam because Eddie Vedder criticized your god, George W. Bush."
    Gee, imbecilic lefty fuck-face, I'm glad you mention a company deciding what they will carry, but I'm sorry you didn't get a helping of edgy W humor; so fashionable, don'tchaknow?

    (more irrelevant bullshit)-Verizon blocked messages from NARAL.

    Of course, to know this happened, you would have to know shit about shit, and not just be some far right Jesus freak Rush Limbaugh addict."
    Can we assume a fan leftty mass murder has decided to show up and prove what an ignorant asshole he is?
    Why, I guess we can.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, lefty ass-sucker, I see you couldn't quite address that pile of bullshit I called you on.
    Real struggle with dealing with relevant facts, right? Lefty brain-damage I'm sure.

  • Jason Sensation||

    You didn't call me on anything, stupid. You said to "buzz off" because you couldn't debate with your creationist pea brain.

  • Sevo||

    Jason Sensation|11.23.17 @ 12:05AM|#
    "You didn't call me on anything, stupid. You said to "buzz off" because you couldn't debate with your creationist pea brain."

    Fuck face, I know lefties have a hard time reading, so I'll repeat it:
    "So something that happened once in Canada 12 years ago means I should pay for your free shit?
    What a wonderful argument to show you should be ignored."
    Fuck off, slaver. You're an ignoramus who ought to be tossed from momma's basement.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, you stinking pile of lefty shit, have you noticed that EVERY ONE of your claims have been shown to be bullshit?
    Just checking to find out how much a stinking pile of lefty shit is willing to tolerate.

  • flyfishnevada||

    I hear in Canada they're going to arrest every Canadian and put them in jail. You see, this one time this one guy did something and so they gotta lock all Canadians up so they don't do it too. Good thing they learned that lesson. Whew!

  • Mark22||

    In doing that, Telus (a major telecom here) violated net neutrality in the most spectacular way possible by blocking a website because they disagreed with the protected speech it was engaging in ... undermining the most frequently repeated argument against net neutrality ("we don't need it because nobody's violating it anyways")

    You managed to dig up one old example from Canada about a company not wanting to be criticized?

    How about a much more egregious and widespread violation of "net neutrality", namely government censorship? Hillary and the likes of her have been chomping at the bit to stamp out political speech they don't like.

    I couldn't care less whether AT&T or Verizon block unfavorable news about themselves; that is not a threat to liberty, and they will usually reverse themselves after all the bad press. I care a great deal about the federal government starting to exercise content control, because that actually is a threat to liberty.

    Unfortunately for the US, that's not really a lesson you've undergone.

    Actually, the example you provide strengthens the case against net neutrality.

  • fakename||

    Do you realize the hypocrisy of criticizing someone for using hypotheticals which are unsubstantiated while you, yourself, rely entirely on hypotheticals that are unsubstantiated?

  • sungazer||

    "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity. Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

    What a crock of shit! Who doesn't have digital opportunity in the USA?
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac.....-are-they/
    So... I can see it now... The elderly and disabled are now suddenly wired with this new bout of deregulation and have the internet explode directly into their brains, making them hard working post-retiree's and productive digital citizens. Thanks Pai!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Based on your crying, you must be using dial-up to post this.

  • Mark22||

    The elderly and disabled are now suddenly wired with this new bout of deregulation and have the internet explode directly into their brain

    Actually, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor will likely be able to get very cheap or free basic Internet service, since they won't be forced to subsidize nerdy bandwidth hogs anymore.

  • flyfishnevada||

    Remember the good ol' days when everyone was afraid the government would regulate the internet to death?

  • unperson||

    you idiotic, low-IQ libertarian brats...the fcking internet providers have a near-monopoly...and they will abuse their power to shut down dissident political views as they are already doing to the Alt-Right...you libertarian fools somehow think that YOU are the dissidents...WTF? Talk about low-IQ...

  • Sevo||

    unperson|11.24.17 @ 6:24AM|#
    "you idiotic, low-IQ libertarian brats.....the fcking internet providers have a near-monopoly..."
    You imbecilic brain-dead, a near monopoly is nothing other than one of the imbecilic, brain-dead boogie man.

    ".and they will abuse their power to shut down dissident political views as they are already doing to the Alt-Right..."
    Cite, imbecilic brain-dead.
    And you have a further load to carry; who told you someone has to provide a podium for your nonsense?

    "you libertarian fools somehow think that YOU are the dissidents...WTF? Talk about low-IQ..."
    We mention room-temp IQs here often; your name comes up.

  • Mark22||

    you idiotic, low-IQ libertarian brats...the fcking internet providers have a near-monopoly

    Yes, thanks to telecom regulations; we need to deregulate further. Europe has shown that more telecom deregulation leads to fewer monopolies.

    and they will abuse their power to shut down dissident political views as they are already doing to the Alt-Right

    The alternative is that the FCC and Congress shut down dissident political views. Thanks, but I'll take my chances with private companies over the federal government any day.

  • RealityBites||

    So when Nestle sets up a water plant up river from you and wipes out your water supply you will just roll over? That's what corporations do every day with full impunity.

    Check out what Duke Energy does with pollution..... hint. they force feed citizens with it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    and they will abuse their power to shut down dissident political views as they are already doing to the Alt-Right

    Wait a second--so you're saying that, with NN in place, they were still shutting down dissident political views?

    Nice own-goal there. Talk about low-IQ indeed.

  • CGN||

    Yet more proof that government fucks everything up. Even whey government is trying to help, they fuck it up. The above is more proof that government AT ALL LEVELS needs to be halved at least if not more. The people most do NOT need the government's help, but they get it whether they want it or not, and whether it is helpful or not (Obamacare, et al.)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Things heard in this podcast: Jurisprudential. Doctrinal.

    Also, at home I use a Digital Subscriber Line, you cockholsters. We don't all live in urbania.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Thank you.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Guys, just checking in.

    I tried to check my email today and my phone battery died.

    THANKS FCC!

  • Mark22||

    we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity

    We've had no net neutrality regulation for most of the existence of the Internet. Changing back to that status quo is going to do little.

    The real problem I see is that from now on, the threat of FCC regulation is always looming in the background because the FCC has shown that it can impose these rules on the Internet.; that alone is sufficient to give a chilling effect. The only way that cloud can be removed from the Internet is for Congress and/or the courts to clearly state that the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality (or even better, has no regulatory authority over the Internet at all).

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Nick Gillespie: But, would it be an unlawful practice if you get rid of net neutrality? Because there might be, or if a carrier says, "You know what? Yeah, we are going to throttle traffic because we want to privilege certain other services," would that be lawful as long as it's transparent?

    Ajit Pai: Again, they have to disclose it and secondly, to the extent if they're doing something anti-competitive, and it's very fact dependent, but the FTC has a longstanding set of principles that it uses to evaluate conduct like that and so it could well be competitive. It just depends on the facts.

    Why not say "yes, it would be lawful"?

    Fact-dependent. LOL

  • drchris||

    You retards who think this is a good thing are too damn stupid. IT IS A BAD, BAD THING>

  • RealityBites||

    Being what they are they really aren't smart enough to understand why.... (Dunning Kruger effect)

  • RealityBites||

    Can't expect anything good from the feral feds.... they are OWNED by the 1%

  • commentator||

    Are they really 'heavy handed' when the ISPs themselves claim Title II hasn't hurt them in any way whatsoever. (In December 2016, Comcast's chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on "the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.")

    And in the WSJ, Pai cites https://itif.org/ for his 5.6% decline statistic, but he ignores that the very thing he cites dismisses this as not really meaningful? "First, let's note this is a pretty superficial question as far as policy analysis goes. Whether investment is up or down after Title II classification doesn't necessarily tell us much about to what extent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy is to thank (or blame) for those changes. Not only is the time period far too short, investment overall could very well be up, but not up as much is it otherwise would be without Title II (same if there was a decline)."

  • piolenc||

    Why I Don't Worry About Net Neutrality

    …unless the FCC gets put in charge of it.

    http://archivale.com/weblog/?p=694

  • FeelTheJohnson||

    Anyone who thinks that net neutrality started in 2015 is completely ignorant on this issue.

  • منتديات الصقع||

  • John Kirno||

    Pai stressed that regulating the Internet under a Title II framework originally created in the 1930s had led to less investment in infrastructure and a http://knowlesti.sg/ slower rate of innovation. "Since the dawn of the commercial internet, ISPs have been investing as much as they can in networks in order to upgrade their facilities and to compete with each other,"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online