FCC Chairman Calls Net Neutrality a 'Mistake' (theverge.com)

FCC chairman Ajit Pai said today that net neutrality was "a mistake" and that the commission is now "on track" to return to a much lighter style of regulation. The Verge adds: "Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market," Pai said during a speech at Mobile World Congress this afternoon. "And uncertainty is the enemy of growth." Pai has long been opposed to net neutrality and voted against the proposal when it came up in 2015. While he hasn't specifically stated that he plans to reverse the order now that he's chairman, today's speech suggests pretty clearly that he's aiming to. [...] Pai's argument is that internet providers were doing just fine under the old rules and that the new ones have hurt investment.

Comments

FIX SLASHDOT ALREADY

[Anonymous Coward]

Godamn ads covering the content!

Re:FIX SLASHDOT ALREADY

[Nidi62]

I've been flagging every as I could as "covering content". I'm sure it does nothing, but at least it removes the ads (the one that you can close and report at least-that damn tikka masala ad from yesterday kept me from reading a few articles because it took up half the screen on my laptop and it wouldn't go away)

Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[sanosuke001]

The job of the government shouldn't be to make sure companies can make as much money as they possibly can but to protect the citizens. Net Neutrality aimed to make the playing field even for everyone. I guess he's okay with Comcast/Charter/etc reaming us.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[NatasRevol]

The job of the government shouldn't be to make sure companies can make as much money as they possibly can but to protect the citizens.

You know that's not the GOP stance, right? They feel that $ helps people and companies making $$$, ends up being $ for people, so helps them. Maybe not all of them...

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[Anonymous Coward]

And the rulings, as enacted, did no such thing and did NOT protect the citizenry.

AT&T and Verizon still gave preferences to their content through their ISP connections

Except they did protect the citizenry, and if you had been paying attention, you'd have seen that there were inquiries regarding such illegal actions on AT&T's and Verizon's part. Unfortunately, the processes moved too slow for anything to come of it before the changing of the guard.

and Google, Facebook and Twitter all block and censor content and access to webpages at their hearts desire - customers be damned.

When did Google, Facebook, and Twitter become ISPs?

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[hawguy]

And the rulings, as enacted, did no such thing and did NOT protect the citizenry.

AT&T and Verizon still gave preferences to their content through their ISP connections and Google, Facebook and Twitter all block and censor content and access to webpages at their hearts desire - customers be damned.

A monopoly (or duopoly, triopoly) ISP should not be able to give preference to any of "their" content. They shouldn't control both the pipes and the content.

If you don't like Google's "censorship", then you're free to use Bing or another search engine. But if, for example, AT&T has a deal with Google, they may force you to use Google even though you'd rather use someone else -- and sometimes AT&T is your only option for ISP service due to the huge barriers to entry to becoming an ISP.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[NotInHere]

And its made harder for many companies to make money once net neutrality gets removed. It essentially brings ISPs into the position to extort large sums of money from the service providers, and obviously on their own discretion. So it harms all companies which provide a service. Net neutrality also drives innovation by giving new and young service providers a more equal playing field with more established ones. Google can just say "well, then search, youtube and drive will be utterly slow", and can use this as leverage, but smaller companies don't have this lever. So it is against innovation and this is ultimately bad for the service provided to customers, and for the economy. The only ones profiting are the big ISP monopolists, but nobody else does.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[kqs]

"Net Neutrality" became a thing as a result of Netflix trying (and failing) to bully Comcast into peering agreements by appealing to the public.

Yeah, I hate when huge companies bully helpless startups like Comcast.

A more accurate description: Comcast is being paid by you and me to deliver the internet, including netflix. But comcast sells movies, so netflix is a competitor. So they decided to limit the traffic from netflix to their customers, so that netflix movie quality would be terribly but comcast movie quality would be good.

Netflix offers free caches to solve this problem, and free peering to solve this problem, but comcast doesn't want to solve this problem, because to them it is a feature.

In a free market we could move to another ISP. In my case, I could also use Verizon... who is doing the same crap as comcast. ISPs are a natural monopoly, based on the economics and physics of running cables.

With net neutrality, all companies can compete based on quality. Without net neutrality, vertically-integrated ISPs have an major advantage. Now, you may like government picking winners and losers, but I'm a fan of market competition, so I choose net neutrality.

Re: Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[dywolf]

He is simply ensuring that his past and future bosses are happy.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[presidenteloco]

Right, so by your logic we need stronger net neutrality legislation, that also prohibits zero-rating, not weaker/non-existent net neutrality legislation as is being implemented by Trump's new FCC leadership.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[Jason Levine]

That's their official policy only because saying "We believe in giving more money to the rich because we don't care about poor slobs - only people who make over a million a year" wouldn't get them votes. So they say "we're giving this billionaire $1 million, he'll definitely use it to hire people and not spend it on a third yacht like he used the last $2 million. Eventually, that million will go into your pockets. Aren't we generous? Vote Me!" The sad thing is that, no matter how many times "trickle down" is disproved, people keep flocking back to it and thinking it'll work perfectly this time. All they need are even LESS checks on the wealthy so that they'll deign to use some of their immense wealth to people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Tried in the 90s and was working until the government suddenly allowed the giant mergers of the large ISPs that owned the local loop and then stopped mandating that the smaller ISPs be allowed non-discriminatory access to the last mile.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[Gr8Apes]

It doesn't take leadership to do what Pai is doing. There's a reason those rules were put into place. As a former telecom employee he fought them tooth and nail as they hampered the profitability of the company he was paid to protect and likely had some stake in the outcome of. So now he gets to remove those things he fought so valiantly against and gee, is anyone surprised that he does just that? I wonder how much telecom stock he owns and under what terms, blind trust or not, as well as family and friends?

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[LeftCoastThinker]

This exactly. ISPs are a Monopoly or Duopoly utility. It is high time that they were treated as such. If they don't like it, tough cookies. Any time they can jack up rates 30% in 5 years, introduce data caps, throttle 3rd party content and not lose any subscriber base, you know it is a monopoly.

Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers

[Jason Levine]

I'm not someone who believes the government solves all problems, but it does have its place. In many situations, removing the government doesn't make people work harder, but just makes big companies and the wealthy take advantage of people more. Less regulations can lead to more unsafe products, dirtier air/water (as they dump their waste where ever they feel like it), or worse employee benefits/pay/working conditions.

In the case of Network Neutrality, I currently have only one option for wired, high speed Internet: Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). If Spectrum, tomorrow, announced that I needed to pay $5 extra a month for access to Netflix, I'd have three options: 1) pay up, 2) don't pay up, don't watch Netflix, but keep my Internet service, or 3) cancel Spectrum and not have home Internet. Given that 3 isn't an option and that there is a lot that I, my wife, and my kids watch on Netflix, we'd be pressured to pay the extra money. Since there is no competition, voting with my wallet isn't an option. Taking them to court also isn't likely to work - they have a team of lawyers that could tangle me up in litigation until I went bankrupt.

In this example, the only option for me is for the government to step in. The government is (at least theoretically) answerable to me and other voters while corporations - especially monopolies - aren't beholden to do anything for me beyond take my money every month. If Spectrum were to enact a $5 Netflix Access Fee in my example, the FCC (or another government agency) could step in and say "You're not allowed to do this." Spectrum can't just laugh off the Federal Government and would be forced to change business practices.*

* Theoretically speaking. Practically speaking, what companies seem to do is change just enough to stay within the law and then pour money into lobbying the government to walk back the protections in the name of "helping businesses grow." Dealing with the massive corporate lobbying problem is another topic entirely.

No Mention of Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pai's argument is that internet providers were doing just fine under the old rules..."

This tells you everything you need to know about Pai's priorities. When the customers don't even merit a mention in a position statement, you know the FCC has been entirely co-opted to a corporate agenda.

The lobbyists have won. Kindly tell me where the nearest lobbyist pocket is so that I can fill it with cash, cocaine and hookers. Who will think of the poor, poor lobbyists?!

Re:No Mention of Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

>This tells you everything you need to know about Pai's priorities

Well, his remarks were made at trade show of mobile industry, so of course they were going to be more business centric than consumer oriented. duh.

But here's a few comments from his speech that the Verge didn't bother to share.

First, during the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, American policymakers forged a
historic consensus across party lines that the Internet should be free from heavy-handed
regulation. Instead of government telling broadband operators where to invest, how much to
invest, or how to run their networks, we let market forces guide these decisions. Regulators made
a conscious choice not to apply to the Internet the outdated rules crafted in the 1930s for a
telephone monopoly. After all, complex rules designed to regulate a monopoly will inevitably
push the market toward a monopoly. Instead, our policy was a modern one that gave the private
sector the flexibility it needed to innovate.

Today, there are nearly 250 million smartphones
in the United States alone that consumers use for everything from uploading live-stream videos to
playing games—and even placing the occasional phone call. In all seriousness, though, we
would not have seen such innovation if, in the 1990s, the government had treated broadband like
a railroad or water utility.

However, two years ago, the United States deviated from our successful, light-touch
approach. The FCC decided to apply last-century, utility-style regulation to today’s broadband
networks. Rules developed to tame a 1930s monopoly were imported into the 21st century to
regulate the Internet. This reversal wasn’t necessary to solve any problem; we were not living in
a digital dystopia. The policies of the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the
first term of the Obama Administration had produced both a free and open Internet and strong
incentives for private investment in broadband infrastructure.
Two years later, it has become evident that the FCC made a mistake. Our new approach
injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market. And uncertainty is the enemy of
growth. After the FCC embraced utility-style regulation, the United States experienced the first-ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession. In fact, broadband investment remains lower today than it was when the FCC changed course in 2015. And we have seen much concern about whether the FCC would permit or ban service plans.

Of course, an article honestly addressing those points would have been preferable to the sorry Verge cherry-picking text and then proceeding to simply state the opposite without citation or evidence of data contradicting Pai points crap that got posted here on Slashdot. But I guess Slashdot gotta do its part to keep up that steady drumbeat of anti-Trump messaging.

Re:No Mention of Customers

[nickmalthus]

Pai is a former Verizon lawyer and industry lapdog. He is doing his master's bidding waiting to cash in on the Washington revolving door like his predecessor Michael Powell, former Republican FCC chair and now the chief lobbyist of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Instead of empowering subscribers to manage their own Quality of Service (QoS) preferences Pai wants his industry buddies to have unfettered access to snoop on Internet traffic and reverse the IP convergence trend that has cut into his benefactors profits.

Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[sycodon]

I think it would be better if they simply stated that:

1. If you advertise X speed, then the users gets X speed, every time, all the time.
2. Get rid of this, "Up To" bullshit. no one is interested in some speed you might get once in a while.
3. No traffic is EVER restricted for ANY reason.
4. If you can't support your sales pitch, then either build out to where you can or change your pitch.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[Baron_Yam]

I disagree with point 3. There are filtering measures required to combat spam, botnets, DDOS attacks, etc.

You want to move those costs as close to the source as possible to put pressure on them to eliminate the problem. A totally unfiltered Internet just means the consumer pays for a choked pipe they can't actually use.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[HornWumpus]

You just broke the net.

Any net neutrality law that make QoS illegal breaks the net. Any law that doesn't, has to micromanage what QoS is. Which means that the trustworthy folks in DC are in charge of yet another thing.

Your ISP can't control how fast the server you connect to is. How are they supposed to guarantee end to end speed?

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[jonsmirl]

1. If you advertise X speed, then the users gets X speed, every time, all the time.

It you download from a third party server who's owner has it throttled to 1Mb/s per connection you're never going to get anything but 1Mb/s out of it. You might have a 100Mb/s ISP connection but it doesn't make any difference if the server is implementing throttling. Many people do not understand this and complain to their ISPs about slow download speeds.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh God I just had a vision of the ISP's acting like the post office and offering bulk discounts for junk mail. Imagine if the spammers paid ISP's to punch through spam filters.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[Highdude702]

Most people that complain, Dont actually understand how the Internet really works. And who manages what.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[Highdude702]

There is no point in arguing with people that want everything handed to them. I view it like this. To get 100% garuntee all times. You would have to spend BUSINESS CLASS INTERNET money. My father has Business class Internet. Thru cox, He pays the same for 20/5 as a residential customer that wants the 150/50 package. But his bandwidth is GARUNTEED. If they would shut up and put their money where their mouth is. They could have everything they are complaining they dont have. But when the price of Internet skyrockets.. They will complain about that too.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[Jason Levine]

As others have stated, QoS is fine for ISPs to do. If you wanted to slow down e-mails slightly so that video streams went faster, that would be perfectly fine. Nobody's going to notice their e-mails arriving 3 seconds late, but people would notice their videos buffering for an extra three seconds. The problem is when ISPs make "video from Netflix" a low priority so that their own video streams can go faster. A better version of #3 would state:

3. No customer requested traffic is EVER restricted based on source for ANY reason.

This would keep an ISP from slowing down Netflix to speed up their own videos and the "customer requested" section would also give the ISPs leeway to block spam or DDOS attacks. (I was going to replace "for ANY reason" with "except for network stability", but then ISPs might - wrongly - claim that Netflix is crashing their networks and they "need" to slow it down to stabilize the system.)

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[HornWumpus]

So, you're in favor of the government specifying exactly what is and isn't QoS? Can you say 'regulatory capture'? What happens when a video streaming site claims to be a gaming or VOIP site to get higher packet priority? What if it actually makes efforts to do both and hide the distinction?

I'm in favor of increased competition in ISPs. Like all the wireless services recently bringing back 'unlimited' data plans.

It's not simple. Even if their was a simple rule that could be made, I have faith in government not to do it the simple good way, when their is money and power to be acquired by doing it the corrupt legalistic way.

Re:Wrong Definition of Neutrality

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

It you download from a third party server who's owner has it throttled to 1Mb/s per connection you're never going to get anything but 1Mb/s out of it. You might have a 100Mb/s ISP connection but it doesn't make any difference if the server is implementing throttling. Many people do not understand this and complain to their ISPs about slow download speeds.

You sir are correct, BUT I should be able to access third-party speed check sites AKA Speedtest.net and see a speed that is within 10% of my advertised rate. I spent six months trying to convince CenturyLink there was a problem with I was receiving a max of 1.5 mb when I was being billed for 10mb. They tried to claim congestion on the network, if true they needed to upgrade their backhaul to eliminate the congestion and provide me with something close to the 10mb I was paying for.

Re:Good way to kill the golden goose!

[Doke]

Charging content providers for bandwidth instead of end users is the opposite of the right idea.

Charging content providers for bandwidth in addition to end users is the opposite of the right idea.

Thanks Trump Supporters

[ohnocitizen]

We now have a man under Russian influence appointing people everywhere he can who are dismantling our system of government, government agencies, constitutional rights, and basically anything under the "common good" from arts funding to health care access.

We're being dragged back to the "good old days" of robber barons and into a bold new era of corrupt foreign influence thanks to an alliance of racists, dominionists, terrified old people, nihilistic young people, and those who are so bitter and ignorant they would sacrifice anything at all to "piss off the left".

It's only going to get worse, especially as Trump continues to attack the foundations of everything that let's us fight back.

What ads?

[sjbe]

I've been flagging every as I could as "covering content".

You see ads? I have them all blocked and never see any. No I don't give a shit about slashdot's bad business model. I'd happily pay a subscription but they can't be bothered to give me the option. So fuck 'em and the ad networks they rode in on.

Re:What ads?

[Gilgaron]

My workplace blocks the ads so we can all be very productive on Slashdot

Re:What ads?

[paavo512]

Yes, selfish pricks like you are indeed the reason the ad landscape has become so hostile. Excellent point.

I do not understand. It does not matter if I do not see ads or if I just ignore them, there will be the same zero benefit for the sellers/advertisers, so there is no rational reason for them to be against ad blockers.

If I want to buy something, I will search for it.

And I'm fairly sure that

[jenningsthecat]

Net Neutrality calls Ajit Pai "a mistake". I'm with Mr. Neutrality on this one!

uncertainty is the enemy of growth

Unchecked growth is a cancer - it needs a few more enemies. Besides, uncertainty favours innovation.

Pai’s general philosophy is that the commission shouldn’t involve itself with basically anything unless there’s a huge market failure

Umm... shouldn't you be trying to prevent "a huge market failure" Mr. Pai, rather than getting involved after the fact? Also, if you ask your constituents, (you know, the people whose interests you're supposed to protect - not to be confused with the corporations from whom you're currying favour), I'm pretty sure they'll tell you that the market is already in a huge state of failure.

Ajit Pai - just another self-serving disaster on the American political scene.

Re:How were consumers not dong fine???

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I can:

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

I'm sure there is more.

Re:How were consumers not dong fine???

[Travis Mansbridge]

Net Neutrality was the de-facto law of the land until ISPs began to upset the balance, beginning with the Comcast/Netflix debacle. This is the functional, traditional way it has worked, and that is why we cannot point to many distinct problems yet, but if you look just below the surface it isn't hard to take this to it's logical conclusion and see that ISPs will jump at the chance to use this as another way not to provide more or better service, but in fact to provide less or worse service, so that they might hold decent service at a premium (or restrict it to their own sites, applications, various new corporate sub-internets that will emerge as a result of this preference for restricting traffic).

In other news...

[whiskeyzulu]

Random Citizen Calls FCC Chairman a 'Mistake'

Re:Good way to kill the golden goose!

[downright]

Yes... but now anybody with a piece of hardware in the middle can set up a toll booth. It's the opposite of a free and open internet.

Re:How were consumers not dong fine???

[kqs]

For many years, whenever I wanted to watch netflix during peak time, the connection was laggy and low-quality. If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.

This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.

So... there is a single example. You can never again say that you have never heard a single example.

I also recall a few cases of ISPs (who also sold telephone service) intentionally degrading VOIP connections.

I don't believe one word

[fredrated]

out of the mouths of trash appointed by our faux president.

Re:There can be only one 'implementation'

[HornWumpus]

Move the goalposts. QoS makes it necessary to prioritize some types of packets over others. Your proposal breaks the net.

Allowing QoS under network neutrality, requires the government to micromanage exactly what is and isn't QoS. Can you say 'regulatory capture'? It's inevitable and bad.

You realize that the real Comcast vs Netflix battle was about paying for colo space in Comcast's racks. Everybody involved knew that a hog like a big streaming service needs servers at big ISPs. Netflix wanted the space for FREE. Comcast wanted to know what made Netflix so special? Netflix spun that as 'wanting to charge us for fast service to our customers'.

Re:"I don't know what Net Neutrality is..."

[geek]

"...but Obama was for it, so I know I'm against it."

Under Obama I lost unlimited data and my cell phone bill tripled in 8 years. Trumps been in office for a month and Pai has had the FCC for a few weeks and my cellphone bill is down 40$ a month and I now have unlimited data again. So yes, Obama was for it and I am against it. Thank you Trump.

Re:#MAGA

[whoever57]

The cellphone market is different.

Most people have either one or two ISPs offering service to their residence. That's insufficient for competition. How many cellphone companies are offering service to you?