Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Harassed By Net Neutrality Advocates

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Harassed By Net Neutrality Advocates

So tolerant.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:5.6.2014_E-Rate_Modernization_Workshop_(13959900047).jpg

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has started to face harassment online and at his private residence as the agency plans to rollback net neutrality.

Net neutrality are rules that force internet providers to treat all information equally. Those that don’t like it have placed threats, even naming his children, on Pai.

So I saw this tweet:

Now let’s see what else people have been saying to Pai on social media. Remember, the majority of these people are supposed to be on the caring and tolerant left.

Apparently, as we have seen before, that doesn’t matter if you’re not on their side.

You want some irony? Okay, so net neutrality advocates want the rules to remain to keep things fair and equal. Well, this one CEO wants to use his connections to get his way. HOW DO I IRONY?

It even expands to changing his Wikipedia page.

Who changed Ajit Pai’s Wikipedia page? I’d like to buy you a beer #netneutrality

A post shared by Emma Vigeland (@emmavigeland) on

Not to mention the racism and disgust.

I had to take a screenshot of this tweet because the picture is disgusting. But it’s his face with liquid over it. You can guess.

https://twitter.com/FateOfTheCrow/status/933769716929146880

This was posted on Reddit:

Wait. You want to know the kicker? Net neutrality doesn’t even matter. At Bloomberg, Shira Ovide penned an article that explained why the whole idea is fiction. Why? Because the majority of us purchase our internet service from large telecom services:

The reality is big companies do have a privileged path into people’s digital lives. They have the money and the technical ability to make sure their websites and internet videos speed through internet pipes without delays or hiccups.

Google parent company Alphabet Inc., for example, famously obsesses over fractions of a second of delay when people surf Google web searches or YouTube. The company has said the vast majority of internet users will give up if a web video stalls. To make sure no one ever dumps a YouTube video, then, Alphabet can rely on its 74,000 employees and the most impressive network of computers on the planet, on which the company devotes a big chunk of its $12 billion in yearly capital spending.

No suburban dad can match those resources. Google doesn’t need to pay AT&T or Verizon to ensure its YouTube videos have a zippier route along those companies’ internet pipes. Google’s unmatched employee talent and money ensure those YouTube videos have a fast lane into people’s homes.

Even with net neutrality, the big and popular companies already have privilege:

Google, Netflix Inc. and other rich companies have long had agreements to connect their computer equipment directly into telecommunications companies’ networks. In some cases, those web companies pay fees for the privilege, known as paid peering. These payments are a legal and accepted — if occasionally controversial — cost of doing business, even under the stricter internet regulation the FCC is seeking to undo.

Telecom companies that “have their own web video programming or digital services” will often do what they can to prop those up and the FCC can’t do anything about it:

For example, AT&T discounts its DirecTV Now internet television offering for people who have its high-end mobile phone service. That means AT&T — without doing anything nefarious to slow internet traffic to rivals– is making its owned web programming more appealing to its customers.

The FCC also permits the telecom providers to accept fees to give access to certain websites or apps without customers worrying about their data costs. Again, the internet is not a level playing field, and AT&T doesn’t have to speed up or slow down anyone’s web traffic to make it this way.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

4th armored div | November 25, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Mary, can;t the FBI called in to arrest people who threaten bodily harm to civilians and officials ?

    Yes. But Swamp Sessions probably ordered them recused.

      inspectorudy in reply to TheFineReport.com. | November 26, 2017 at 12:36 am

      The solution to all of the internet ills is the removal of anonymity. Give everyone a verifiable identity and make that part of your avatar. Every site or forum you visit, your real identity would be present. If you don’t think that would stop about 99% of the hostility and vicious comments then you are not applying it to yourself. Then throw in term limits for all of the swamp crowd and we would be on our way to a new America.

        Yeah, the government could require your citizen ID number be used.

        For those in Rio Linda – /S

        4th armored div in reply to inspectorudy. | November 26, 2017 at 10:28 am

        my point was that the FBI can and should arrest and charge the thugs threatening others.
        when anyone signs up for accounts, they need to provide non bot id/email and the FBI can get warrents to identify them –
        anonymity is ok when making comments but NOT threats.

          Because no one has ever used the FBI / IRS / etc to harass their political opponents.

          Part of the “cost of freedom” is that people get to be obnoxious.

        Arminius in reply to inspectorudy. | November 26, 2017 at 1:09 pm

        That’s insane, inspectorudy. The reason people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Robert Spencer (not Richard Spencer the racist, but the anti-Jihad/anti-Sharia Supremacist author and activist) have to keep their locations secret and live with round-the-clock security details is precisely because they are not anonymous.

        And you want to make it easier for fanatics like jihadis or Antifa to find and target ordinary joes who voice unpopular opinions? People who can’t afford 24 hour security details?

        I’m in such a situation. I will quote you chapter and verse of the Quran that commands Muslims to kill in the name of Allah, to commit acts of terror, to capture non-Muslim women as sex slaves, to violently subjugate the “Ahl al Khutub (people of the book, primarily Jews and Christians) and to make their lives a living hell.

        2:216

        “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.”

        3:151

        “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”

        4:24

        “And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”

        That’s enough for now. Then when Muslims lie and claim that the I’m taking these verses out of context I’ll go their own sources to show that these verses mean exactly what they say.

        “(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah’s statement,”

        The above is from the Tafsir (exegesis) of ibn Kathir, a medieval Muslim Quranic scholar who is still so influential that in order to get a transliteration certified by Al Azhar university as conforming to Sunni orthodoxy, ibn Kathir is one of the sources the author must consult. But, then, Muslims will lie (as the Quran permits them to do, as did their prophet who said “all war is deceit”) an claim that these commentaries aren’t authoritative. So I’ll go to the ahadith and cite the authority that ibn Kathir and other exegetes are using to make these commentaries.

        Sunan Abi Dawud – Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)

        “(711) Chapter: Regarding Intercourse With Captives

        Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.”

        This is a sahih hadith. Sunnis can not deny the authenticity of a sahih hadith, and must recognize its authority. In fact, the reason Sunnis are called Sunnis is because they are Ahlus Sunnah. The adherents of the Sunnah of Muhammad. Yet they will deny the Sunnah of Muhammad and it is permitted to do so because they are permitted to lie to advance the cause of Islam. Normally to deny the validity of the Sunnah would make them a heretic.

        3:28

        “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”

        This is what the verse means:

        “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said, “(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way)” meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said, “(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them),” …”

        There are more quotes similar in nature to the above. Suffice to say that the “disbelievers” (Chrisians, Jews, all non-Muslims) are Allah’s enemies and Muslims must therefore take them as their own enemies. But I’m going to skip ahead to what the verse means after “except.”

        (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,”

        Muslims will often lie that anything called taqiya exists in Islam. They’ll insist that it’s a term made up by “Islamophobes.” But it’s right there in the verse. Verse 3:28 uses a form of taqiya, which means concealment. It’s a form of lying that means Muslims can conceal their true intentions. They can conceal what is actually in the Quran for the “safety” of the ummah. Denying that there is an an Islamic supremacist agenda is in fact part of the Islamic supremacist agenda. Indeed, Muslims can deny they are Muslims if that is what it takes.

        These are truths that need to be told. But saying so, even on the internet, means I fall afoul of Sharia slander laws. Slander under Islamic law isn’t confined to lying. It’s telling the truth about someone or indeed the entire ummah doesn’t want known (full circle back to taqiya, concealment).

        Which is a death sentence. Do you really want to make it easier for the jihadis to carry it out, inspectorudy? If I couldn’t remain anonymous I can guarantee you I’d be doxed by Muslims using their own names. They wouldn’t make a direct threat on the internet. That’s what their Saudi-funded, unmonitored Mosques are for. I’d be the subject of every Friday sermon in every Mosque in Texas.

        Anonymity exists for a reason. Just ask any refugees who escaped from murderous dictatorships who hid their wealth in secret Swiss bank accounts. Money they needed to live. Just ask any author who had to publish under a pseudonym to voice an unpopular but demonstrably true point of view.

        Then Antifa would know whose house to visit. You can’t possibly think this will lead to anything other than harassment and intimidation.

          Arminius in reply to SDN. | November 26, 2017 at 9:36 pm

          Concur. That was the point of my lengthy earlier point. Although used Muslims as an example.

          As an aside, r.e. that attack on the Mosque in the Sinai. Thank God Obama isn’t still President; he’d be wagging his finger at us and lecturing us about how IS can’t have anything to do with Islam because they just killed hundreds of innocent Muslims.

          Sura 9:73

          “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

          It was a Sufi mosque. Salafis do not consider Sufis real Muslims but instead hypocrites. That is, people who call themselves Muslims but don’t adhere to the Quran and follow the example of Muhammad (as the Quran commands Muslims to do in verse 33:21) and to obey Muhammad’s rulings with the same blind faith they have in Allah (33:56). Consequently, they aren’t innocent and deserve to be killed.

          This, again, is quintessentially Islamic. Muhammad himself believed that Muslims who didn’t show up at the mosque when required for the five daily prayers were hypocrites who should have their houses burned down around them (his companions, whom the Salafis name themselves after along with the next two generations of Muslims, talked Muhammad out of burning them to death). Muslims have been practicing takfir from the start; takfir means expulsion, or excommunication if you like. It’s their national sport.

          When Abu Bakr became the first “rightly guided” Caliph he fought what are known as the wars of apostasy. He killed thousands of people Obama would tell us were “innocent Muslims” but the early Muslims considered hypocrites and apostates. It’s why the leader of IS, al Baghdadi, modeled himself on him. Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife, and the fourth and last “rightly guided” Caliph Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, killed over ten thousand of Obama’s “innocent Muslims” at the battle of the camel in November 657. And it hasn’t stopped ever since. There is nothing more Islamic than one group of Muslims declaring another group of Muslims hypocrites and killing them.

          I’ll talk to Muslims face-to-face about their Quran, their other core texts, and Islamic history. Most of them have no idea because they’ve never read them. And for a very good reason. Shirq, assigning partners to Allah, is the worst sin you can commit in Islam. But coming in a close second is Bid’a or innovation. They’re told not to ask questions (3:7) or to come up with their own interpretation. Instead they’re told simply to accept what their Imams, Sheikhs, and scholars tell them without question.

          But as I said earlier I’d hate to have to drop my use of anonymity on the internet and become the subject of every Friday sermon in every mosque in Texas. And get firebombed in the middle of the night. Much like how the Salafis of IS killed those Sufis.

These “net neutrality” fanbois are truly morons. If ever there was a big government intervention for a problem that simply doesn’t exist, this is it.

Like the internet was just SO BROKEN before Obama did this stupid shit. Give me a break and shut the fuck up.

    guyjones in reply to Paul. | November 26, 2017 at 7:41 am

    They are foolish beyond belief. Typical of totalitarian, jackboot Leftists, they are contriving outrage and seeking to engage in self-aggrandizing histrionics in support of a contrived “cause” du jour, where no problem exists.

    So what if NetFlix or some other deep-pocketed company wants to pay ISP’s a fee to receive preferential treatment for the delivery of their content over access lines? That’s the essence of free market contractual freedom and efficiencies. It’s not as though non-preferential content is going to be delivered at dial-up-like speeds.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to Paul. | November 26, 2017 at 10:45 am

    You are absolutely wrong. The internet service providers are essentially monopolies, or at best aligned oligopolies. As a consequence, they should be treated as common carriers and not be permitted to discriminate against anyone, especially any competitors with any internet product the ISP also provides. Do you want your cable company discriminating against any other service provider, so that you must deal only with the cable company? Do you want to be forced to accept only the bundles the cable company forces you to have? That is not free market competition, and it is entirely appropriate for the government to require a competitive market. What good comes of being forced to deal only with monopolies? Do you wish telephone service was still that way? The cable companies even sue municipalities to keep them from offering competitive broadband. Is that good?

      You either don’t know what you’re talking about or you think we’re stupid. When in 2015 then FCC chairman Wheeler announced “net neutrality” it also came with 322 pages of government regulations that he refused to make public. We know about that because then FCC board member Ajit Pai was shocked by the government takeover and raised the alarm.

      Do I wish my telephone service still worked like it did during the days of Ma Bell? Know. And “net neutrality” is simply an attempt to return to the days of 1934 and turn the internet into a version of Ma Bell.

      If were talking about monopolies then the government can break them up. We don’t need 322 pages of new government regulations governing the internet to do that. The reason for all those regulations was to turn our internet into something more akin to the communist Chinese model.

        InEssence in reply to Arminius. | November 26, 2017 at 4:59 pm

        CC is correct. Net neutrality is not left vs. right. Of the 20 million comments received by the FTC 98% were for net neutrality, but the monopolies such as Comcast are against it. Comcast already has the worst service and highest prices of anyone in the world. This move by the FTC is just more sugar for them. The free market can’t work, when only one company is allowed in most cities. These companies need to regulated like a utility.

          Arminius in reply to InEssence. | November 26, 2017 at 8:42 pm

          Only if you want to go back to the days of Ma Bell. Then demand that internet service providers become federally regulated utilities. And I’m not impressed by your numbers. I’d say the 98% of those 20 million comments came from people who couldn’t explain the electoral college and the history of why we have it. It’s one of the reasons I left CA. A couple of years back gas in L.A. hit something like $8/gallon. A camera crew went to various gas stations to video shocked motorists. One woman who couldn’t afford to fill up completely said to the crew, “What are they doing to us?”

          I got a chuckle out of that. I thought to myself, “What do you mean “they?” You did it to yourself.” The people of CA did it themselves. Every single time they had a chance to vote for new clean air regulations they did. Under the emotional pressure that if they didn’t vote for every single clean air regulation, they must be for dirty air. They were told you can’t have too much clean air. Actually, you can. After a certain point there are no health benefits to trying to clean the air further. So this woman apparently didn’t know that CA uses special summer and winter blends of gasoline that aren’t used anywhere else in the country (so gas companies can’t truck in plentiful and cheap gasoline from out of state). And only two refineries in the state make the special CA blends. And when the price of oil goes steeply up and one of the refineries has to be taken offline due to a fire, you get $8/gallon gasoline. And the CA voters have no one to blame but itself.

          If you want to pay more for worse internet service, demand “net neutrality.” The economics are similar to rent control. Like clean air regulation and rent control, which the proponents say will provide cheaper housing due to government regulation, “net neutrality” sounds good if you don’t understand the economics. The chairman of the FCC at the time, Tom Wheeler, admitted his commission had given itself the power to set prices. Just like the rent controllers. And the results would be the same. Less investment, less competition, and thus paying more for less.

          We have the tools to deal with monopolies. We’ve had them for over 100 years.

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/congress-what-the-fcc-did-in-300-pages-we-could-do-in-six-without-the-overreach/

      “…’We look forward to working our way through the 300-plus pages of this Washington manifesto,’ the chairmen said. ‘Our six-page draft legislation could prevent abuses and promote robust Internet investment — all without the overreach included in the FCC’s order.’

      Thune along with Senate and House colleagues proposed a bill in January that would ban Internet service providers from blocking content, slowing service speeds or establishing higher-priced fast lanes — the core concerns behind net neutrality advocates — without reclassifying ISPs as public utilities under what the lawmakers describe as ‘Depression-era rules to regulate the Internet.’…”

      I disagree with the last point. It’s like proposing a law that says Chevrolet can’t build a $70k Corvette that’s faster than a “basic” $20k Cruz. But the point remains. It’s an oxymoron for the FEC, or anyone to defend, 322 pages of government regulations and still pretend we are maintaining an “open internet.”

      Again, Caniff, do you really know that little about what you’re talking about or do you think we’re that stupid? Then FCC chairman Tom Wheeler admitted during congressional hearings that his proposed regulations gave the government direct control of the internet. Down to and including setting rates, just like during the days of Ma Bell. The regulations didn’t explicitly give the FCC that power. But the FCC did give itself the broad authority to act in any way it deemed “just and reasonable” when resolving charge disputes raised by consumers.

      Any time an unaccountable government agency gives itself the broad authority to act in any way it deems “just and reasonable” when government agencies have repeatedly demonstrated they are neither just nor reasonable, that ought to scare everybody. If government agencies were just and reasonable, then they wouldn’t issue hundreds of pages of regulations governing the industries the regulate and claim they’re merely maintaining open competition. By definition they’re doing the opposite. The FCC was giving itself the power to act as an overbearing an unpredictable governing agency. Of course the chairman as well as Democratic Senators argued that service providers would have due process rights to seek resolution. Great. Service providers didn’t have to deal with the added cost of regulatory compliance until “net neutrality” came along. Regulatory compliance amounts to a tax that will be passed along to consumers. And also there’s the very real possibility that the bureaucrats at the FCC, having no clue as to what is “just and reasonable,” would assert its authority over service providers by acting capriciously and stupidly.

      When I was shopping for houses back in the late ’90s due to a job change I learned an interesting factoid. I was moving from Texas to California and I was keeping my Texas property as a rental. But I digress. Regulatory compliance adds $3-4K to the price of a house in TX, but it adds $60k to the price of building a house in CA. Which adds up to CA being one of the most if not the most unaffordable housing markets in the country.

      If you wanted to discourage investment and development in the internet industry, thus ensuring consumers would be paying more for less, you couldn’t find a better way than to give the government such broad power over it under the guise of “net neutrality.”

The idea behind net neutrality was that Verizon could block access – or so slow access – that it was an existential threat. The reality is that has not materialized at the ISP level.

You know where it has happened? At the social media service level, where the walled gardens of Facebook and Safety board at Twitter do things like shadowban, censor and lock accounts they don’t like.

Real risks to net neutrality. Don’t like some neonazi website (today) or a tea party blog (tomorrow), then drop their domain, block their Twitter, suspend their Facebook account.

The net neutrality advocates? Silent as clams. But their hypocrisy speaks volumes about their true motives.

    starride in reply to PrincetonAl. | November 26, 2017 at 10:29 am

    Yes it did, there were several class action lawsuits against TWC and Comcast that proceeded the implementation of net neutrality. In fact the discovery process in the lawsuits themselves brought about the realization of what the ISP companies were doing and identified the necessity for it.

    “The reality is that has not materialized at the ISP level.”

    Well, other than ISPs like CloudFlare refusing to host people they disagree with…..

Net neutrality is a good concept, especially in an age where internet access is being controlled by a smaller and smaller group composed mainly of for profit corporations.

The FCC exists to keep a small oligarchy from controlling public information sources. It came about as the control of mass media was being consolidated in a few corporate hands. It was essentially designed to eliminate a monopoly on political access to the masses. To do this, government oversight was instituted. Of course this has caused an ongoing struggle to balance government oversight and government control.

Now, the internet is a unique entity. It was started as a government network to facilitate information transfer over wide areas very quickly. The governments used it to link academic institutions and then lost control of it. It essentially became the electronic version of the public square, in which speech and spread of information and ideas was unrestricted. The only filters which existed, for a while, where those that the end user self imposed. Some regulation proved necessary to thwart criminal actions, but that was foreseeable.

The net evolved, overtime. while the net itself is still pretty much an open avenue, the off ramps have now been taken over, bought or built by commercial entities [ISPs] who control their use. These corporations can control what content uses their off ramp and can charge the information providers or the end user for the use of that off ramp. It allows the ISP to filter and control the information reaching its end users. Net neutrality was supposed to keep the ramp open to all traffic. The owner of the off ramp, the ISP, could charge the end user a fee for using the connection which it provides, but it was not allowed to treat different internet entities, ideas or data differently. It was supposed to force the ISP to remain neutral with regard to the content of the data which it allowed its subscribers to access via its connection to the net.

The net neutrality legislation, in the US, was flawed, of course. What legislation isn’t. But it provided a framework which could be used to build a compromise which allowed internet access providers a chance to maximize profits while allowing the consumer unfettered access to data on the net. Repeal of the Open Internet Rule is not the road to eliminating restrictions on internet access.

As to communications service companies such as Google, Twitter, Yahoo, etc, they do not provide access to the data stream on the internet. They provide a specific search or social contact service for internet users. And, as they do not directly control a user’s access to the internet, only to the service which they provide, they are currently not regulated by Open Internet. Such regulation may need to come about, in the future. But, if the whole idea is maximize access to the internet, then repealing the Open Internet Rule is not the way to go.

    GregFtw in reply to Mac45. | November 26, 2017 at 8:05 am

    Very nice summary of how we got here and where we are.

    I’ll just add for historical completeness that the DoD created the first piece of the internet to ensure communications among military facilities in the event of nuclear attack. The packet switching and multiple pathways for information to flow are design features for that purpose.

    Edward in reply to Mac45. | November 26, 2017 at 8:42 am

    I usually agree with you, but can’t this time. Net Neutrality is hardly “neutral”. It is anti-capitalism in that it prohibits any entity paying more for better access, so if Netflix or Amazon wanted to pay for better throughput – they can’t. Someone comes up with a great new idea for a service on the net, can’t get any preferred service to spread the idea.

    With the growth of high bandwidth services (Netflix, et al) there arose the need to keep increasing the throughput. The problem is that a major component of the net is the fiber optic buried cables, which have a limited capacity (huge by the standards in place when it was all copper wire, but still limited). It cost a great amount to install this cable and it costs a great amount to increase the capacity to serve customers. Why shouldn’t those using the greatest amount of bandwidth pay more to enable the expansion of the net hardware basis? They can’t/don’t have to because the government under His Imperial Executiveness, Emperor Barak the Nonpareil, decided the government needed to control the net, rather than leave it to capitalism to continue the success it had become. In order to get around existing statute preventing the government from interfering with the Internet, the FCC declared the net was no different than the gas or electric company, it was a public utility. The Left’s argument for this status is that it is a necessity of life. As the counter argument went, so is food (even moreso) yet food producers aren’t regulated as a public utility. IF net neutrality is allowed to continue, how long will it be before it is taxed even more than it is currently? Government control most often leads to that, doesn’t it? When did the telephone companies become responsive to their customers and start competing and innovating? When subject to deregulation, not when they were regulated as public utilities.

    And finally Google, the NY Times and the Ford Foundation (and a bunch of other Leftist entities) all like it – which should tell us about all we need to know about it.

      Edward in reply to Edward. | November 26, 2017 at 8:46 am

      Forgot to add that the argument that it is a good concept, just has a flawed introduction reminds me of the arguments that we just need to put more money in the pot to make the latest welfare scheme work perfectly, or Communism/Socialism is a great idea – just hasn’t been properly instituted yet.

      starride in reply to Edward. | November 26, 2017 at 10:25 am

      Edward, I pay for 300mbit/sec connection to the internet. Wo should decide what data i consume at that rate? Me or my ISP and the company that pays my ISP extra money.

      Mac45 in reply to Edward. | November 26, 2017 at 11:58 am

      You fail to understand the potential problem here.

      This is not about commercial uses of the internet and it never was. It is about the ability of a single ISP or group of ISPs to unilaterally, actively censor what content one of their customers is allowed to access.

      Today’s internet access is not the same as it was 20-30 years ago. Back then commercial ISPs were few and far between. One could connect to almost any ISP by using a standard dial-up telephone connection. So, anyone with a few hundred dollars, a server and an unused closet could become an ISP. Today, as you noted, internet communications requires significant expenditures to provide the speed to meet the desires of the consumers. And providing that infrastructure costs money. Someone has to pay for it and traditionally that has been the consumer.

      So, economically, the ISPs run into a brick wall. Their customers will only pay so much for internet access. Even though the ISP can provide different levels of service for customers and charge different fee schedules for those services, they want more. And if they can get commercial services to pay them to give their connections preference, this sounds like a good deal. But, this is not the danger posed by unregulated ISPs. The danger comes from the ISP filtering data on an ideological basis. There is nothing stopping commercial internet concerns from giving individual ISPs money for the sole purpose of expanding and improving their infrastructure to allow for greater bandwidth. Of course most commercial enterprises will not do this as it aids their competitors as well.

      Starting with internet entities, we have already seen Facebook, Twitter and Google using have been caught using their services to filter material on an ideological basis. They can do this, legally, because they only provide a communications forum service and are not providing access to the internet medium per se. Then we have the news media services. No one would content that these organs do not filter data for political and philosophical ends. Now, what if the entities which control access to the internet are allowed to do the same thing? What if you are no longer able to access Legal Insurrection via your ISP and there is no other high speed ISP available to you? What if the ISPs decide that their customers can only access the MSM and liberal social and political organs? What if your telephone carrier no longer allows you to communicate, telephonically, with the RNC, or the DNC or any other political or ideological group or organization with which the ownership disagrees? Who you gonna call?

        Massinsanity in reply to Mac45. | November 26, 2017 at 1:23 pm

        You significantly overstate the potential problem Mac, the lower layer providers have little incentive or desire to filter content. Its at the content (or application) layer that we must worry… we see this already with FB, GOOG etc.

        As long as there are at least 2 access providers in an area there will be competition so the concerns of the net neutrality cadre are completely overblown.

          The Packetman in reply to Massinsanity. | November 26, 2017 at 1:37 pm

          “As long as there are at least 2 access providers in an area there will be competition”

          That’s not necessarily the case. Up here on the mountain, we ‘technically’ have two providers:Comcast and the telephone company (Comcast operates in our county, but doesn’t go up on the mountain). So while there are two providers I effectively only have one.

          And the big telecoms are now trying to use the fact that a customer *could* access the internet (no matter how difficult it might be), to count as *competition* when they change their access parameters.

          Mac45 has it right; the net neutrality rules aren’t perfect but they are needed.

          You are missing the point. Think of the internet as a freeway and ISPs as off and on ramps. If you want to reach Google, from your home, you have to get on the freeway and drive there. You exit the freeway, probably via an ISP. Then you load up your data, reenter the freeway [via the ISP] and drive home, leaving the freeway via another ISP. All good so far.

          But, what if your ISP won’t allow you to enter the freeway to travel to Google? Or if it allows you onto the freeway, what if it will not allow you to get off with the data that you collected? That is what Open Internet was supposed to regulate, your right to enter or leave the internet [the freeway] unopposed or restricted by the ISP [the owner of the on/off ramp]. What data which is housed in its facilities, Google allows a person access to, is an entirely different matter.

          The current Open Internet regulations are terribly flawed. And, they should be simplified and clarified. But, this requires “repeal” AND “replace”. And, so far, all we have heard about is repeal. Perhaps we should wait to have the whole package to analyze before we take any action to change things.

          No techie here, but the goal of net neutrality is absolutely, positively not to create a freer and more accessible internet. “Open internet” is an Orwellian term designed to obscure the true goal (as is “net neutrality”). By whatever name, the goal has always been and will always be the exact opposite of “neutral” and “open.” It’s an answer in search of question, a “starter home” for government control of the internet.

          In fact, initial advocate for the “open internet” (aka “net neutrality”) stated quite clearly the initiative’s goal:

          MICHAEL COPPS: Right. Now fast forward to this, we’re talking about the open Internet, and the future of broadband, which is just as important to them. And perhaps all of that media one day is going to migrate over to the Internet. And they have a vested public interest in making sure that those things are protected on the Internet. And this is this is a tough question for America right now. Here you’ve got this dynamic technology that thrives on openness that thrives on innovation and all of that. And you don’t want to regulate, or artificially limit it. But, at the end of the day, if that’s where everything is moving, is that where our national dialogue, our civic dialogue is moving, if that’s how we’re going to educate ourselves and all, there is a public interest component to that. How do you make that happen in a global environment? The Internet is international. It runs so much differently. But still, at the end of the day, I think you have to come to that conclusion that we have a public interest in how this https://fuzislippers.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/net-neutrality-the-down-payment-aka-the-starter-home/.

          I could go on, but I’ve already written this post. Read it here. The key idea here is that the government needs to decide how the internet, indeed information itself, is directed by the feds.

          I get that Trump supporters aren’t conservative, but on what planet is the government governing ANYTHING beyond the military cheaper, more efficient, or in any way better?

          When my internet carrier goes off the rails, I and all of my neighbors will let them know, and the problem will be fixed. Within 24 hours. Put the government in charge, and we need no fewer than 31.25 committees studying the problem 24 hours a day for five years and another 24.38 years to begin thinking about working toward a solution. Yay!???

Yeah, he’s got a bunch of ill-tempered wombats who follow him on Twitter too, just to throw rocks. I swear he could save an orphan from a rockslide and all of them would manage to make it into some sort of screech about Net Neutrality.

“Net neutrality are rules that force internet providers to treat all information equally. Those that don’t like it have placed threats, even naming his children, on Pai.”

Correction: Those that like it have placed threats…

It isn’t the people who don’t like net neutrality who have been threatening him and his family – that is a method used by the Left.

Most of the things being said about Pai are silly but are they anymore silly then some of the things you see on thegatewaypundit or infowars?

Recognize them for what they are.

There is however one thing I sort of agree with. Getting a controlling interest in Pai’s ISP.

You don’t think it would be a good idea for some wealthy group to take over Congress’s health plan and make them live under Obamacare rules?

Let GOOG, FB and Netflix build their own access networks if they don’t like it… GOOG tried in SF and elsewhere and failed miserably so they want to ensure a free ride on someone else’s capex dollar.

Rod,

For example?

I don’t see the issue being at the service provider level but at the content provider level, which we are actually seeing with Twitter and Facebook actively targeting conservatives.

That is where the true threat Is!

I find the Bloomberg article to be, well not very intelligent.

The argument that the big companies spend lots of money to improve internet speed.is offset by the fact that they have much greater infrastructure and it reqwuires much more money to increased much less then say the locksmith down the street improving his web page preformance.

Not to mention that this is all done to increase speed to get their products onto the internet backbone, and net neutrality is all about making sure that no particular traffic is given a “slower lane” when going from the backbone to the home. These are totally two different things.

In fact, the Youtube example that is provided by the author actualoly demonstrates the need for NN. Suppose tomorrow, AT&T created AT&TTube. They however can’t match the profficiency of YouTube. So instead they “even the playing field”, by slowing down YouTube’s traffic? Why should Google spend money improving YouTube when AT&T can undo it cheaply? Who does it help to discourage such investment, except of course for AT&T.

As for the second point, peerage has nothing to do with NN. Different company own, operate and maintain different parts of the back bone, which they then “share” with others. They then work out who sent how much over where and negotiate payments. Just like any other shared resource. It has nothing to do with who has priority over lines going from the backbone to home.

The final point is just stupid. Yes AT&T is excluding DirectTV from it’s data limits. That is because PAi’s FCC is qallowing it, and the same people who argue for NN argue against allowing it. I can’t remember whether Wheeler’s FCC had banned it or was moving to ban it, but they certainly were opposed to it.

Governments do not create ‘free markets’. Governments either interfere (net neutrality) or stay out of the way. Obama care and it’s exchanges are net neutrality in the insurance world. Government deciding what a company must provide is the opposite of free enterprise

I saw let them change the rules. After ATT merges with Time Warner, anyone with ATT as an ISP will have fast pipes to CNN and slow pipes to Fox. I can’t wait for the outrage after this happens.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend