The FCC Is Full Again, With Three Republicans and Two Democrats (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. Senate today confirmed the nominations of Republican Brendan Carr and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel to fill the two empty seats on the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai congratulated the commissioners in a statement. "As I know from working with each of them for years, they have distinguished records of public service and will be valuable assets to the FCC in the years to come," Pai said. "Their experience at the FCC makes them particularly well-suited to hit the ground running. I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations."

Carr served as Pai's Wireless, Public Safety and International Legal Advisor for three years. After President Trump elevated Pai to the chairmanship in January, Pai appointed Carr to become the FCC's general counsel. Rosenworcel had to leave the commission at the end of last year when the Republican-led US Senate refused to re-confirm her for a second five-year term. But Democrats pushed Trump to re-nominate Rosenworcel to fill the empty Democratic spot and he obliged. FCC commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. esides Pai, Carr, and Rosenworcel, the five-member commission includes Republican Michael O'Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.

Comments

He does not mean it actually

[ZorroXXX]

Pai said .. protect consumers, ..

But in his mind, FCC's customers to serve are corporations.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Maritz]

He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[NicknameUnavailable]

He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.

You seem to have a strong opinion on "net neutrality" without knowing what it was.

In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.

In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.

As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers. When you see consumers in a fit over something demanding it happen at the same time it is very much worth looking into what the Hell is actually in the regulation, because if everyone on all sides wanted it then it would already be reality and chances are someone is at the least misrepresenting things if not outright lying.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[JohnFen]

In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services.

No, that's not the idea at all. The idea is to ensure that ISPs wouldn't interfere or impede packets based on who was sending or receiving them.

was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.

If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[chill]

No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.

Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality

Here's one showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.

That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.

What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.

That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.

They've already tried to do this with Netflix and Vonage, to name a couple.

Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.

What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/comcast-blocks-some-internet-traffic/

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-fiber-netflix/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon

How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?

Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Comcast#Net_neutrality

Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs.

Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[kqs]

If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.

This is false.

If that were true, it seems easy to prove. What small ISPs are against Net Neutrality? Because most of them really seem to want it. It's mostly huge ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc) who are against Net Neutrality.

Which makes sense. Small ISPs cannot leverage their power to extort money from Netflix, Youtube, and other (media) competitors. So NN is not a big burden to them. Large ISPs can and do, so NN will make them less money. As always, follow the money.

When big ISPs extort money from media competitors, those competitors have to raise prices to cover the difference. So consumers pay more. Also, when big ISPs have media competitors the free market makes prices fall. NN means less monopoly power and more free market, so lower prices.

Not sure why you want less free market, but to each their own.

Trust issues

[TimothyHollins]

"I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations" he said, while the holy cross on the wall burst into flames.

Re:Trust issues

[interkin3tic]

He IS working to close the digital divide. By making sure those of us in the city have only one ISP to choose from at dialup speeds for insane prices, there will no longer be any divisions between us and people who choose to live a hundred miles from the nearest town.

He IS looking to protect consumers from the evils of watching too much porn. If we're allowed to download more than a gigabyte of data a month, it will just be unrealistic porn which will warp our sexuality.

He IS hoping to improving the agencies operations. There will be more people to collect bribes. Plus, what if Pai is on vacation when comcast calls and says they want this or that regulation eliminated? This way someone will be there to answer the phone.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Nidi62]

kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results. I didn't like Hillary either but the alternative was obviously worse.

To paraphrase a famous quote: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil.

Many people who voted third party this election, myself included, were hoping that 2016 would finally loosen the grips that the Republican/Democrat divide has on the political system. instead it seems to have only strengthened it.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[stinerman]

We really need all the minor parties to join a coalition that strictly advocates for getting rid of FPTP voting and nothing else. Trying to break up the duopoly by chipping away piecemeal isn't going to work. We need to start there if there is going to be any real change.