Slashdot Mirror
Petition Calls for Ouster of FCC Chairman Pai (whitehouse.gov)
Long-time Slashdot reader speedplane writes:
Yes, we've all heard that net neutrality is on its way out, and it seems NPR was able to snag one of the few (the only?) interview's of Ajit Pai on its effect. Sadly, NPR's Rachel Martin stuck to very broad and basic questions, and failed to press Pai on the change of policy. That said, it's worth a listen.
Pai insists that "We saw companies like Facebook, and Amazon and Google become global powerhouses precisely because we had light-touch rules that applied to this Internet. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted, and once we remove them, I think we'll continue to see the infrastructure investment that will benefit digital consumers and entrepreneurs alike... I've talked to a lot of companies that say, look, we want to be able to invest in these networks, especially in rural and low-income urban areas, but the more heavy-handed the regulations are, the less likely we can build a business case for doing it."
But New York's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he's spent six months investigating "a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC's notice and comment process" for net neutrality, adding that "the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence." (Nine requests over five months were ignored.) And now over 65,000 people have signed a new online petition at WhiteHouse.gov calling for the immediate removal of Ajit Pai as the FCC's chairman, calling him "a threat to our freedoms."
Meanwhile, The Verge has compiled "a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you," with each listing also including "how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle."
Pai insists that "We saw companies like Facebook, and Amazon and Google become global powerhouses precisely because we had light-touch rules that applied to this Internet. The Internet wasn't broken in 2015 when these heavy-handed regulations were adopted, and once we remove them, I think we'll continue to see the infrastructure investment that will benefit digital consumers and entrepreneurs alike... I've talked to a lot of companies that say, look, we want to be able to invest in these networks, especially in rural and low-income urban areas, but the more heavy-handed the regulations are, the less likely we can build a business case for doing it."
But New York's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he's spent six months investigating "a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC's notice and comment process" for net neutrality, adding that "the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence." (Nine requests over five months were ignored.) And now over 65,000 people have signed a new online petition at WhiteHouse.gov calling for the immediate removal of Ajit Pai as the FCC's chairman, calling him "a threat to our freedoms."
Meanwhile, The Verge has compiled "a list of the lawmakers who voted to betray you," with each listing also including "how much money they received from the telecom industry in their most recent election cycle."
For the same reason I can't start my own power company because I don't like the local utility services. I can't just start dropping poles into public right of way.
Without "net neutrality of power" the power company could charge you more to run your oven because they want you to eat out. That sort of seems ludicrous to any rational person. Kilowatts is kilowatts and I should be able to power whatever I want with them. Note there are "setbacks" that you can opt-in with the power company. They will change the thermostat on high demand days to reduce demand on the overall system. That's somewhat reasonable, but it's opt-in and you typically get a discount for opting in.
With the advent of mesh networking and 5G, starting a new ISP might be easier than before. You just need to get frequency space from the FCC. Good luck with that.
Net neutrality has been distorted by idiots like you.
It isn't the content that is being regulated. It is the ability to get that content at all.
Would you use Facebook if you had to pay $5 more a month for social media access?
Would you get kissed off if your Comcast (Which owns msnbc) stopped streaming all fox news streams? Unless you signed up to pay Comcast $10 a moknth to allow fox websites and streams access?
How would fox pay for such things? They charge you for it. So you pay Comcast $10 a month to access fox websites and pay $ fox $10 a month to get access to that plus pay Comcast again for basic internet access?
Net neutrality is only to ensure that Comcast which owns msnbc doesn't use their monopolies to limit what you can get access too. That is what Comcast has started doing. That is paid access that Comcast forces Netflix to pay, to show content that you requested.
All ISP's want this. That is how they monetise the stream. They want to charge 3-4 times for the same network content.
That is what net neutrality is. Everyone arguing otherwise is using distraction and lies to hide the truth.
In Portugal you pay extra to access certain websites like facebook
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.