FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Criticizes Companies That Oppose His Efforts To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules (recode.net)

Tony Romm, writing for Recode: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the U.S. government's existing net neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Pai said during an event in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet. "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest," he said, "but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy." The surprising rebuke came as Pai forged ahead with his plan to end the net neutrality protections adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under former President Barack Obama. Those rules subject broadband providers like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon to utility-style regulation, all in a bid to stop them from blocking access to web pages, slowing down connections or prioritizing some content over others. [...] He didn't spare tech companies from that criticism, either. Companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter -- speaking through their main Washington, D.C.-based trade group, the Internet Association -- have urged Pai to stand down. In response, Pai sought to make an example of Twitter. He specifically raised the fact that the company at one point prevented a Republican congresswoman from promoting a tweet about abortion, only to change its mind amid a public backlash. "Now look: I love Twitter," Pai began. "But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate."

Comments

He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[MikeDataLink]

Those are not the same things.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the same things in that Net Neutrality is supposed to make sure that all packets are treated equally, which is what "free speech" means legally - all speech is to be treated equally. If you allow me to say that white people are evil, you have to let me say black people are evil. You can't ban one and not the other. That's how free speech works. Net neutrality is the same principle applied to packets.

EDIT - Of course /. has a politically correct speech filter that doesn't allow the proverbial "N" word, thus ironically making my point.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[MTEK]

He's not confusing anything. He's intentionally trying to mislead and distract.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[dunkindave]

Our work blocks all sorts of IP addresses from unsavory countries. That is a violation of Net Neutrality.

That concept seems to appear in a lot of the comments, and isn't true. An end user (you work) is free to what they want since it is their traffic. Net Neutrality deals with a middleman making that decision for the end users without the end users consent, and without a clear network protection or legally required purpose.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Archangel Michael]

Middle men? You mean Peering Nodes or Comcast?

If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?

The problem is, that most people don't have a grasp of what the internet actually looks like, and who is buying what from whom. And the biggest reason is, we (the average end user) don't have a choice, or if we do it is between CableCo Cable Internet or DSL from TELCO. If you fix THAT problem (thanks government for Franchise agreements) you'd fix net neutrality quickly.

Not understanding who owns their network and controls it is a large part of the problem.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[ClickOnThis]

The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.

FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet

Either you're deliberately twisting the meaning of Net Neutrality, or you live in opposite-land. The purpose of Net Neutrality is not to have the Government decide what's best for us. It's to keep corporations from deciding that.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[dunkindave]

If Comcast throttles/blocks traffic on its network, based on source IP or whatever, what is the difference to our organization throttling/blocking it?

The difference is in one scenario your organization chose what traffic they didn't want to process, and in the other an entity outside of your control did it without you having any say (other than changing providers if that option exists).

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[sjames]

The exclusive franchise agreements are mostly dead now and have been for some time. These days, cable providers meet quietly and agree on territories and stay out of each other's area, because they know that if they allow market forces to apply even on the edges of their areas they will have to start offering better value.

But let's not forget that the exclusive franchise agreements were originally part of the privatize everything kick. They were intended to assure private corporations that they could quickly see ROI on a significant capital outlay so we wouldn't end up with (God forbid) a government supplied utility. So before you get too far behind the cable ISPs crying over regulations, remember that they would never have existed without regulations.

Perhaps one day when most people have 5 or 6 viable choices for broadband internet we can back off the regulations, but we can't let the market sort it out until there IS a market.

Malevolence

[nightfire-unique]

Let this be a lesson.

He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.

This is an act of malevolence.

Interesting comparison

[Green Mountain Bot]

So, Twitter is bad because they sometimes block content on their platform, and the solution is to allow the ISPs to block content on their pipes?

Wrong.

[spun]

This is so off target it barely even qualifies as "wrong" as opposed to simply "nonsensical." Net neutrality is not free speech applied to packets. It is not concerned with the contents of the packets but their origin and destination. Net Neutrality says you can't discriminate based on origin and destination. You can discriminate based on content, for example, you can drop spam or denial of service attacks. You can even prioritize based on content, so for example you could allow all voice chat packets higher priority, but only if you do it for all voice chat packets rather than creating a paid fast lane for certain people's voice chat packets. Stop listening to insane wight wing sources, they are leading you into dangerous places, like a little lamb to slaughter.