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

[BlueCoder]

I was about post ask asking what one has to do with the other...

I do believe it's an intentional redirect. Or maybe he is hinting that conservatives and republicans are being discriminated against by "liberal" internet media companies so this is pay back. That they don't pay any attention to the needs of such companies.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[SeaFox]

Well, apparently he doesn't understand Free Speech.

I mean, corporations are supposed to be people, right? These corporations are just exercising their right to Free Speech in publicly opposing his Net Neutrality repeal, and he's complaining about it.

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

[urusan]

The N word? Do you mean "Net Neutrality"?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[EndlessNameless]

Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.

No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.

Net neutrality deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own network boundary.

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

Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate. Endpoints, aka private companies and private customers, can filter whatever they want.

The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source

This is a very naive viewpoint. Utilities need right of way to run their lines to each residence throughout the city. You can't have everyone digging everywhere or putting up poles wherever they feel like it. Likewise, you cannot have one homeowner blocking internet access to half the city.

There need to be reasonable rules. The ISP/power/water/waste lines need to be built and maintained---while minimizing disruption to private property owners and commuters. The the government must be involved at this level; there is simply no way around it.

With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole. That's the most important thing the federal government can do.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[cyberchondriac]

Same here. Though I plan to (re)register as Independent. Pai is so full of it his eyes are brown and flies buzz around his head. Not fond of Sessions either.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[thomst]

cayenne8 asked the musical question:

Exactly what brand of crack has this guy been smoking????

Comcast brand, of course.

Now available in refreshing menthol blue ... !

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[nospam007]

"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." ...by the government, yes.
But on my site, my blog, my shop's site, there's only one valid viewpoint, MINE!

If I don't ant to sell a wedding cake to a Republican, then I won't and Twitter has the same right not to make business with morons if they chose so.

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

[Hal_Porter]

You'll get a load of posts telling you don't understand the principle of 'Net Neutrality'. When in fact you understand it just fine, you just don't agree with it. Or, more accurately, you don't think that 'Net Neutrality' goes far enough because it still allows Facebook, Twitter and Youtube to censor its users and only prevents Facebook's ISP from forcing people to pay more to access FB or to charge FB more to send its packets.

And the thing is that former case is happening but the later case seems to be purely theoretical. And before anyone mentions MEO in Portugal, the situation is nuanced.

https://hotair.com/archives/20...

I reached out to Meo on what exactly their SmartNet offering entailed. Here's their response (emphasis original):

"MEO complies with the European regulation on net neutrality and there is no distortion of the market caused by its commercial offers. Access and use of any application or service on the Internet is permitted by all MEO Internet access offers, and it is not necessary to adhere to specific packages in order to enjoy certain applications.

The SmartNet offerings correspond only to additional traffic ceilings for certain thematic sets of applications that are no more than the reflection of Portuguese consumer preferences. These offers are beneficial to consumers since it allows them to further customize the packages according to their consumption profiles. MEO is proud to have been a pioneer in launching this type of offer in Portugal, with multiple examples of similar offerings in other countries such as Spain, Germany and Belgium."

So Khanna either doesn't understand Meo's SmartNet is an extra service which could save customers more money, or didn't bother trying to figure out what it meant to serve his own purposes. It should also be pointed out these offerings have nothing to do with Internet access from a computer, but from a mobile phone or tablet. Their top data plan is 30GB. AT&T starts data throttling at 21GB, for what it's worth, even with their "unlimited" data. Verizon has their own version of data throttling, as does Sprint. These are with net neutrality, for the record.

Or look here

http://www.telecomsense.com/20...

The actual facts reveal that mobile operators appear to be competing to give consumers more, not less, options. And, of course, a quick perusal of the actual service offerings available to consumers confirms that this is exactly what is happening in Portugal. Three facilities-based providers currently operate in Portugal (a country of 10 million people): MEO (a play on "meu" or "mine"), Vodafone, and NOS (a play on "nos" or "us/we").

MEO offers 4 basic mobile plans with some amount of "unlimited" calling, SMS, and/or data use, ranging from the cheapest (about $13/month) to the most expensive ($57/month). The cheapest plan (with voice/SMS) comes with 500mbs of mobile internet service and the most expensive plan offers 30gbs--with which the consumer can use to access the whole internet. But, if a customer only wants mobile internet service, she has the option to purchase 10gbs of service (to the "whole" internet) for about $18.00/month (offer here).

MEO also offers consumers--with any mobile internet plan--the ability to get "SmartNet" packages with an additional 10gbs of the applications they use most (e.g., video or social networks) for an additional €4.99 ($5.80)/month. In other words, the "tiered" graphic that "scary news" articles are using to show the "cable" apocalypse was finally upon us, is in fact merely a bunch of mini "binging" packages (similar to T-Mobile's popular "binge on" promotion).

What about the other providers? Although none of the other operators offers anything like the "SmartNet" mini-bin

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

[Obfuscant]

Wrong. Net neutrality says that internet providers may not censor or discriminate.

I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.

With net neutrality, the FCC could guarantee an open internet regardless of how much competition is permitted at the state/municipal level. It protects the internet as a whole.

Any rule that protects the internet INTO getting hundreds of useless spam messages per day is a bad rule.

That's the most important thing the federal government can do.

The problem is that there are always unintended consequences from federal regulation, simply because federal regulation cannot be written to cover all possible situations or provide the right answer in all cases.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowflake:A term used to describe extremist liberals that get offended by every statement and/or belief that doesn't exactly match their own. These individuals think they are just as "unique" as snowflakes, when really their feelings are just as fragile.

"Congratulations! Its a boy!"

"Did you just assume that baby's gender?"

"Someone get the snowflake out of here, please".

Strictly a leftist thing. But, of course, you already knew 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

[EndlessNameless]

I rather like it that my ISP blocks traffic from some Chinese-based IP addresses. I was getting hundreds of spam emails from one specific domain per day -- now I get none.

There are exceptions for standard network management activities. This includes anti-spam filtering. Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.

The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good. The established net neutrality rules balance network operations and consumer protection very well. I was surprised when they were announced, given Wheeler's background.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Hal_Porter]

This is a very naive viewpoint. Utilities need right of way to run their lines to each residence throughout the city. You can't have everyone digging everywhere or putting up poles wherever they feel like it. Likewise, you cannot have one homeowner blocking internet access to half the city.

In the UK BT owns the phone lines. However it is forced to sell DSL wholesale packages at a capped price. Those are resold by ISPs. So there's one set of wires for telephone but there is still competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If you've only got one DSL provider in each area in the US, the regulations are written wrong. Basically some company has manipulated them via regulatory capture. That's a problem.

Though actually the FCC claims 97% of Americans do have a choice

https://cei.org/blog/net-neutr...

The real alternative to the light regulatory touch the Internet enjoyed during its first twenty years-one that admittedly left executives at Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to figure out what consumers wanted-is an Internet experience controlled by unelected government bureaucrats and elderly politicians (the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61).

Does that sort of big government control strike anyone as a recipe for unfettered free speech and torrents of innovation? It shouldn't.

Certainly, markets don't deliver everything to everyone perfectly at all times. But as flawed as your broadband provider's customer service or variable connectivity speed can be, it's still better than dealing with the post office or the IRS.

That's largely because, if it gets maddening enough, you can quit your broadband provider and switch to another one. Or at least most of us can: FCC data shows that 97 percent of census blocks had more than one provider offering at minimum 10 Mbps as of 2016. You don't get the option to take your business elsewhere at the DMV.

It's that consumer power in a relatively unfettered marketplace that's driven the striking growth and improvement in broadband speeds and availability. Current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai noted in his 2015 dissent to the Open Internet Order that the United State's light regulatory approach resulted in much faster speeds for consumers and more industry investment in wireline deployment than the utility-style regulation in Europe has produced.

Laying net neutrality regulations and restrictions on this dynamic industry will reduce the rate of returns for these broadband providers and, all else being equal, will lower investment, as Duke University Professor Michelle Connolly recently explained at an economist's roundtable.

tl;dr - if there's not enough competition, then fix that. Net Neutrality won't do that. It doesn't need multiple sets of wires, merely regulation that forces whoever owns the wires to allow multiple companies to operate on them and still be profitable. If you do that you'll get multiple competing services. And if some of those don't fulfill the holy principles of Net Neutrality, you're free to use a different one.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[EndlessNameless]

a virtual network vs a physical network

Net neutrality is mainly concerned with internet and transit providers. Endpoints like Twitter are not addressed. You would need a different set of rules for that---which is a terrible idea anyway.

that is a moot point. See bakers and other public accommodations

Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from interfering with speech. It does not regulate content providers like Twitter or Breitbart, who are always free to decide what is available on their servers.

When the POTUS uses a platform to address the country, that platform should be a neutral platform of ideas and conversation.

If the POTUS wants to use a platform, the government should either build it or contract its services in a way that satisfies the government's legal interests. Otherwise, the government can take whatever they offer. On Twitter, he's just another asshole user.

If you want a law that requires web sites to publish government content, then you'll need to debate that issue on its own. It has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Bryansix]

Ya but with Internet, leased lines make way more sense than having local monopolies.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Obfuscant]

There are exceptions for standard network management activities.

Whenever NN is mentioned, there are never "exceptions." It's "never" and "always". The comment I replied to was one of the "nevers". That's why I replied.

Under net neutrality rules, the ISPs would have to justify this behavior if it were ever challenged---and face fines if their justification is bullshit.

The ISP should not be under threat of fines for doing something that is so obviously common sense.

The rules published under Wheeler were actually quite good.

Other than being from an agency that doesn't have the authority, you betcha. Let's put the rules where they belong, not where it is convenient, and let's stop ignoring the jurisdictional issues just because we like the rules.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Megol]

And here I thought people all over the US complain how they are limited to one Internet provider unless they themselves go into the business of being one. Yeah, I must have a really bad memory because that's not how it really it. Thanks for letting me know how wrong I was!

Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?

If so you are a fucking idiot and shouldn't post.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[EndlessNameless]

In the UK BT owns the phone lines

In the US, each telecom company owns the lines it built. This fundamental differences renders the remainder of your suggestions moot.

We could argue whether the British model is better or worse, but there is zero chance of the US consolidating ownership of the physical plant if we cannot even agree on basic regulation.

If you'll recall, a huge chunk of Americans have a massive hard-on for private property rights. Federal rules such as you suggest are simply not going to happen.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[haruchai]

he's not *confusing*, he's *conflating* those things & quite deliberately.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[dunkindave]

What part of the internet is owned and operated by the Government?

We are talking about regulations that govern how a company is allowed to operate, specifically companies deemed to be communication carriers, meaning companies that transmit traffic on behalf of third parties. Government ownership or government operation isn't required.

The Difference between one scenario and the other is exactly the same. Each organization has the right to control packets on its network or it doesn't. There is not "public" Internet owned by the government. Now you're saying the Government has a right to dictate what a company can do with its own network, and that would apply to ANY network, not just those connecting tho a peering node.

No, they are different. You are allowed to do what you want with the traffic destined for you once it reaches you. A company in the business of delivering data that is handed a data packet addressed to you shouldn't have the right to decide on their own that they chose not to deliver it unless you have given them that right. No more than AT&T can receive a call request from Sprint destined for your phone and decide they don't want to let the call go through since it came from Sprint (again, barring legitimate operational or legal reasons). The government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, and in this case, that means the right to be treated fairly. The argument is what is fair.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Zero__Kelvin]

Changing providers isn't any better. That is the equivalent of saying if you don't like being a slave you always have the option of changing to a different owner.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[PopeRatzo]

Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.

Excuse me, dumbshit. Your firewall is not selling you bandwidth.

I bet if you think long and hard on the difference between an ISP and a firewall, you will figure it out.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[naubol]

It's not about government control of the internet because the rules that it is trying to enforce are public, the actions it takes are public, and the rules are not designed to enable the government to censor speech. The rules as written are not designed to give the government the right to read or manipulate traffic, just the opposite. The loss of net neutrality is a much bigger window for the government to control the internet. Some parts of the government could now collude with the major telecom companies in order to shut down dissident speech. I find a government that isn't enforcing NN to be much more frightening to our freedoms.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[werepants]

Why should Comcast get to decide what I am allowed to use my internet connection for? If I pay them for a connection, it doesn't matter if Netflix is 1% or 100% of that traffic - I pay them for a connection that I will use for whatever I want.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[VernonNemitz]

The rescinding of net neutrality won't stop anyone from posting biased stuff, and therefore Pai's excuse regarding Twitter is utterly worthless. Also, note that because net neutrality has existed, there was nothing Twitter (or any other biased source) could do to prevent negative feedback from arriving. You can bet that if net neutrality is rescinded, biased sources will be happy to prevent unwelcome feedback from arriving.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[thunderclees]

This is on purpose, its a political tactic along the same lines as mixing Women's Rights and abortion.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Matt.Battey]

Question: How does rolling back Net Neutrality make us less "at the mercy of ever stronger Google?" Wouldn't repealing Net Neutrality (which ensures that all parties pay for their on-ramp/off ramp, with no special charges for prioritization) allow Google could then establish contractual agreements with network providers to guarantee that their traffic receive priority over all else, guaranteeing that Google would have the most established "fast lane" available. Wouldn't it also allow Google to contract with the network providers to disallow traffic from other providers?

The Net Neutrality argument goes:
    1) Many LISPs want to become content providers at best, and content redistributors at least, adding this service as a revenue stream.
    2) Because LISPs have control over 100% of the data flowing through their network, it is possible for the LISPs to prioritize content, for which they receive additional revenue, over content from other services.
    3) Local Internet Service Providers (LISPs) are equivalent to local monopolies, as most consumers may pick from 1 (maybe 2) providers for non-wireless service.

Because LISPs are equivalent to a local monopoly, they should be regulated like other local monopolies, i.e. Utilities. The closest Utility match is the telephone carrier (and in fact many LISPs are legacy telephone carriers). Thus they should be regulated like Telephone Carriers to eliminate monopoly power.

Ajit Pai's primary argument is that Net Neutrality is like “1930s-style regulation" (See: TechCrunch). That same regulation busted Banking and Rail Road monopolies and the US economy is arguably healthier for it.

Without Net Neutrality we are at best replacing strong Google/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon/Apple with strong Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter/Cox.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Altus]

Well then maybe they should let us run servers on our connections.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Hal_Porter]

It doesn't matter who owns the natural monopoly, the point is that the government forces them to allow competitors to use it.

Actually the US has Local Loop Unbundling already

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just like the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It seems like that only applies to DSL and phone lines though. Then again that's the same as the UK.

Assuming you're in the US how many ISPs can you choose from, including DSL, Cable, FIber and so on?

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[mikael]

Because they can charge customers more for the extra bandwidth and speed like Virgin Media do. They don't need to charge them exclusively to watch Netflix.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Matt.Battey]

I don't know why, but no-one else is making this argument, even though it is the crux of Net Neutrality. Which is to say, Net Neutrality provides a regulatory guideline to ensure the content that consumers wish to receive is delivered to them regardless of the source. If content providers are "clogging" networks with their content, it is because consumers are demanding it.

Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies as many if not most US internet users are limited to one to two fixed line providers (wireless is another beast all together). Without Net Neutrality Local ISPs would be able to charge content endpoints what ever the wished to guarantee a "fast lane." Thus they would be able to prioritize content from which ever stream paid them the most, which could be content delivered by its own organization, even to the point where content from other sources were completely denied.

Look what is happening in the wireless world. Cell traffic is still not considered a Utility Service, and as such Wireless providers are skirting current Internet Net Neutrality regulation by providing their own or contracted content: T-Mobile + Netflix + Hulu, AT&T + DirectTV + HBO, Verizon + NFL Mobile + FiOS Mobile

So to get "free" Netflix video streaming on your cellular device, you have to go with T-Mobile; HBO, then it's AT&T, etc. Is this monopolistic behavior? (Probably)

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[i286NiNJA]

Hey just save all their posts so after NN is squashed we can mock them in the future thread where people are rebuilding the last mile out of chewing gum and wifi because regular internet access is carved into 1980s cable packages.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[F.Ultra]

If you get no spam today as you claim then you obviously have no problem with net neutrality since it's currently is in effect.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[jmccue]

Why should Comcast spend a whole bunch of money to improve its infrastructure so Netflix

1. Both Comcast and Netflix deliver TV shows.
2. Comcast also has an ISP
3. Comcast had a 20+ year head start

So, Comcast wanted to milk it's customers with high prices. They could have easily done the same thing as Netflix, but decided to abuse their customers and now wants to double charge for crappy internet.

Also Comcast got very large tax breaks to build the infrastructure, which has not improved in 30 years where I live. And now they charge me if they need to correct the cable from the street to the house. So too bad, no sympathy from me.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[doug141]

No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Pai seems to be working for the owners of the big ISPs, not the american people.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I admit I do not know the answer to your first question. Except that since Google lobbies hard *for* Net Neutrality, it stands to reason they stand to gain from it -- if they weren't, they would at least keep silent. But I would like to have a more specific answer.

Regarding the NN argument, it is essentially the question of local vs. global monopolies and I think the latter are worse. If I switch from Comcast to the other provider -- if available, I agree -- nothing ties me to Comcast. Whereas Facebook has a monopoly on my social media presence, such as it is, and Google has monopoly over search and an undue influence. It is harder to switch away from them. It seems to me that the answer is building more cable, perhaps even government-subsidized, rather than making sure Google has equal rights with everyone else.

I am not against regulation in principle, but a regulation cheered by the the biggest monopolies doesn't make me comfortable.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[EndlessNameless]

It seems like that only applies to DSL and phone lines though.

Correct. This is part of the benefit for Verizon in offering FiOS---the fiber service is not regulated the same way as copper.

Cable telecoms like Comcast were essentially unregulated by default, so fiber-to-premises brings the phone companies (ATT/Verizon) to parity. While I prefer fair competition, deregulation is not the answer for natural monopolies.

Assuming you're in the US how many ISPs can you choose from, including DSL, Cable, FIber and so on?

Typically, you have one or two choices for residential service. A few regions may have strong competition, but this is extremely uncommon.

I live in a somewhat typical situation: I am far enough away from a central office that DSL is terrible, fiber is not available from any provider, and cable service is overpriced. I mean overpriced in the most basic, reasonable sense here. I.e., I would have a much cheaper cable rate from the same provider if I lived in a region where they have effective competition.

The major telecoms generally do not expand into areas with multiple providers since it is difficult to recoup their capital investment. Fiber buildouts are still priced in dollars per foot---which gets expensive when you need to run miles of cable.

There are also satellite and cellular services, but they often have data caps, metering, higher prices, lower bandwidth, poor latency, or a combination thereof.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Hal_Porter]

It's funny the UK market was better last time I got an internet connection there.

You've got a competitive DSL market and monopoly fibre and/or monopoly cable if you live in a city. Out of a city you've got 1Mbit DSL only, but you do still have a choice of provider.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Hate to double post but here's what may be the answer to why Google wants net neutrality: "When premium transmission service is offered and at least one content site purchases the service, profits for content sites that do not purchase the premium service are lower than if the premium service had not been offered, all other things being equal."

In other words yes Google can strike a deal but it would eat away their profits and maybe considerably. What reduces Google's profits makes Google weaker.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Tanktalus]

When you abuse the word "Nazi", which has a well-understood meaning, to mean something else entirely, you cannot wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[orlanz]

Basically Ajit is saying some private companies are expressing their personal opinion in their business. And some are big enough to influence public opinion.

He feels this ability to direct public opinion and restrict speech should be available to ALL large companies. Not just the few entitled. Even the ones with significant tax payer funding. Only qualification is money, highest bid wins!

Of course his government organization is allowed to do this too. They ignored public opinion on their feedback forums.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[jsepeta]

He's not confused, he's LYING

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.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[rtb61]

He is complaining that the great scam of mass internet corporate censorship is coming undone, not that he gives a fuck either way but no big payout for him for failing to pushing it through and they will fire his ass. They would of course also fire him for succeeding but the idiot does not know that (why fire for success because the guy is not hated as fuck and simply is a extremely undesirable as a public face for any organisation, so they would/will dump the idiot either way). Just look at the dude and they way he is carrying out, employed to do one thing and one thing only get rid of net neutrality and not even the best person for the job, just the one dumb enough to take it, thinking he was gaining access to the big time, becoming a insider, a future 'haves more'. In terms of internet geekery, I could not thing of a more hated person globally (he is become pretty much the epitome of all that is evil on the corporate controlled internet).

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Matt.Battey]

Ya, I totally agree with the notion that Google is on its way to a monopoly, but in my mind it's a different type of monopoly. Where I live there is a single broadband provider available to me, Cox. And I can choose from two wireless provider (AT&T, Verizon). Neither provides the same level of bandwidth or latency and both would cost four times as much as Cox for the same monthly capacity. If Cox were to suddenly tell me that I can't use YouTube, because they couldn't come to an agreement with Google like they have multiple times with local TV stations, that would put me as a consume in a situation where I have no feasible control.

NN is supposed to keep the Local ISPs from blocking content to consumers. NN ensures that every content provider is on an equal field with the consumer. I'm not sure that something that ensures I have choice and treats content providers equally is a problem, even if it doesn't negatively affect a global monopoly.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[UnderCoverPenguin]

The problem started with government, removing that problem solves net neutrality at the source, the freedom of the customer to choose the vendor they want, not the one the local Municipality choose 35-50 years ago.

I agree. Unfortunately, that problem is not easy to correct. Technically, the cable monopoly in my area expired 20+ years ago. Still only one cable company. And since the cable company is the main ISP, here, it's also an Internet monopoly. (Yes, the phone company is also an ISP, but only offers 20% of what the cable company does. Satellite is also available, but is very unreliable.)

The main 2 reasons there isn't another cable company are cost and lack of will on the part of the local utility board (that controls access to the utility poles) to defy the wishes of the current cable company. We sued the board to attempt to force them to do so, but the judge ruled that the board had not violated any law or rule. The board is appointed, so we can't vote them out. And Internet service is only one of many, many issues the elected officials deal with, so gets "lost in the noise".

Yes, some of us regularly remind our local officials. We even ran a petition drive. The board responded "There aren't any pending applications." And the officials replaced a few of the board members - with other people from the same pool as the ones that were replaced.

We are now looking into wireless mesh networking. Our biggest problem with that is finding home owners or businesses in the right places who are willing to host our equipment for connecting to the Internet.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Same here. Cox has been fairly good so far I have to say but I know they, like everyone else, will create whatever hell they can get away with. But I feel the hell Google can get away with would be worse.

Why can't other companies build more infrastructure I wonder.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[dryeo]

The common carrier thing goes back to the railroads. To update it to the automobile age, think of a private toll road and if they were allowed to charge FedEx a higher toll then UPS. Shit like this was common at one point with the railways picking the winners and losers so common carrier status was brought in to force the railways to have common tarifs, eg charge by weight or volume, not the name on the package.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

Clearly because comments cannot be edited by users and especially anonymous comments.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

That's like asking why we should build freeways if trucking companies are just going to make money off of them.

Also holy shit the shills are coming out of the woodwork on slashdot.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[shilly]

Why bother trying to sound knowledgeable and authoritative when you don't know the difference between tenet and tenant?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[shilly]

97%! FFS. That's 97% having a 10meg line. So 23m Americans don't even have a choice of provider for a less than 10meg line. When you get to actual broadband speeds, like 60meg or so, the numbers are depressing: 100m or more Americans lack choice of provider. It's shamefully poor.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, I think the FTC is being dishonest with that figure. It's high enough for a casual reader to think there is no problem, and yet once you look into it you start to see someone has made some very careful choices in order to get a figure that high.

It anyone says "95%+ of X" you should look very carefully into their methodology for claiming it. Odds are they're trying to mislead you.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[StikyPad]

Mainly he's confusing "Twitter" with "The Internet."

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Why should Comcast spend a whole bunch of money to improve its infrastructure so Netflix can make a whole bunch of money off other companies? Netflix (and its users) should pay extra since it consumes 20% of the entire internet traffic.

Comcast says that with the new Netflix load, Level 3's traffic to Comcast's network would be five times more than the cable company is driving to Level 3's network. So Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay for that traffic increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/3...

Comcast should improve its infrastructure because of competition in the ISP market and we the people are demanding faster and faster data. Do you really want Comcast to harm every video site that isn't giant Netflix or Youtube or Amazon or Hulu?

And what about "packages" of just those sites, but to get the entire Internet a whole lot more money?

Already they force Netflix to give them a cut of what you pay Netflix. This is in addition to what you pay them for ISP service. If they slow them down (and specifically them, not general video) then Comcast's claim for x speed to you is a lie, and they should go to jail for fraud.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

Except that since Google lobbies hard *for* Net Neutrality, it stands to reason they stand to gain from it -- if they weren't, they would at least keep silent.

What if they're actually lobbying for it on principle?

If you don't believe that, they probably don't like the idea of having to pay every ISP in the country a shake-down fee to make sure that packets for google.com aren't mysteriously redirected to Bing.com (or whoever else is willing to pay top dollar for Google's traffic).

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

It's just an attempt to get conservatives on his side by lying to them.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

I have my doubts. It's possible that Ajit Pai is dumb enough to actually believe that what he's shovelling is pure sunshine.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[aquacrayfish]

I'm sure he believes it. If you view everything he does through the lens of 'what would a lawyer for Verizon do if he were in charge of the Internet', everything comes into focus.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I have no doubt that Google has studied Net Neutrality far more than you or I and that based on that careful study they decided to support NN.

As for Google being paid to fork over money for search, I would actually like to see that happen. Think about it: Google pays, so it's eating away from their profits, so their growth slows -- would you not say it's a good thing at this point? And second if Google pays handily for search priority it effectively subsidizes the service to a degree. I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

As for Google being paid to fork over money for search, I would actually like to see that happen. Think about it: Google pays, so it's eating away from their profits, so their growth slows -- would you not say it's a good thing at this point? And second if Google pays handily for search priority it effectively subsidizes the service to a degree.

Sorry, I always try not to form my opinions of whether something is a good idea solely on who I think it might hurt. The problem is here that repealing net neutrality is a double-edge sword (and we the users will get cut by both sides). Google, on the other hand, can afford to pay a lot of money for this prioritization, and the ISPs that charge it will quickly become addicted to that money. Pretty soon, it will give Google power over them. While Google probably doesn't want to do this, it would further entrench Google in a dominant position. For example, a new search engine wouldn't even be able to try to compete unless they are backed by a few billion dollars worth of access fees in addition to everything else they need to invest in to actually build a better search engine.

I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.

You should be a comedian, because there's simply no reason for them to do that. There needs to be competition to drive prices down, and the majority of American ISP marketplaces have one or maybe two cable providers, DSL providers and Wireless internet providers. So, as I understand it, there's virtually no ISP competition anywhere in the United Sates, so additional revenue will be claimed as profit and distributed to the owners.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[martinfb]

Agreed! WTF?!

Twitter is allowed to voice any opinion, just not allowed to block or otherwise interfere with any other access.

Dear Ajit. PLEASE step down and allow a QUALIFIED person into your post!

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[agrisea]

Level 3 is now owned by CenturyLink.. A letter arrived yesterday announcing it. I can hear the groans now.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Though actually the FCC claims 97% of Americans do have a choice

First, I'd like to see that from the FCC, rather than from an argument against Net Neutrality. Second, it's often a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, and a duopoly isn't necessarily better than a monopoly. Third, you do realize that, if one house in a census block can get cable Internet, and another house in that block can get fiber from the phone company, every single person in that census block has a choice by those measures, right?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I'm sure you'd be laughing too all the way to the bank if two ISPs competing for your dollar force Google to pay and you get a lower rate. Seems to me rather than having big government protecting the largest corporations, why don't we just deregulate building infrastructure?

Also I've just read that the NN regulations was passed only in 2015 and 3 to 2 along party lines. Can we really expect that a recent strictly partisan wisdom be all that timeless?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

The problem started with government

Nope. The only way to solve this problem is government action.

Setting up last-mile internet service is very expensive. Trying to compete with the cable company and the phone company is expensive, and there's nothing to stop them from lowering rates and improving service temporarily until the newcomer goes bankrupt. It's a natural monopoly. For historical reasons, it's frequently a duopoly, since both the phone and cable companies built out while they were still separate services. (Both the phone and cable company around here offer phone/television/Internet packages.)

Moreover, to run more wires or fiber, it's necessary to have rights of way. In a city, these necessarily cross government property, like streets. The government has to decide who gets to do that.

So, we can have government-mandated Net Neutrality (read "common carrier" status). We can have a shared last-mile system available for any ISP to connect to at a reasonable rate, which generally means government action. (DSL service was normally provided on that basis, but DSL doesn't cut it any more.) Or we can choose whether to be screwed by the phone company or the cable company, those of us who have a choice.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Twanfox]

I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.

This has already been seen in another industry. Specifically, a tax was allowed to expire on airlines and rather than pass the savings onto customers, the base rates for the tickets increased by exactly the amount of the tax, meaning customers continued to pay the same amount. See, airlines realize that the market already is willing to bear that purchase price for the ticket (fees and taxes included) so there is literally no reason a company would pass on money they could collect unless they were not allowed to.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/2...

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

This is a good counterexample, however I think the difference is airlines are always struggling, few are profitable so there's little room to pass the savings on to consumers. ISPs seem to be doing better and it's understandable -- far fewer moving parts, literally.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[bingoUV]

Trying to compete with the cable company and the phone company is expensive

Why is "company" in the singular in so many places above ? That too prefixed with "the" ?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[eric_harris_76]

No. Not true. If by "free speech" you mean the First Amendment It's about the national government and, if some people are right about Fourteenth Amendment, other governments in the United States.

If you meant something other than the First Amendment, what did you mean?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

Also I've just read that the NN regulations was passed only in 2015 and 3 to 2 along party lines. Can we really expect that a recent strictly partisan wisdom be all that timeless?

I suppose that's true. We can't expect the Republican party to have any respect for reality when they can opt for partisan denial instead.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Oh c'mon -- the "Republican Party", tens of millions of Americans in the great scheme of things incredibly similar in behavior, habits and values to tens of millions of the "Democratic Party" Americans -- certainly similar when compared to say Japanese, West Africans, Icelanders and in fact many Europeans and so on -- do not have "any respect for reality" and instead engage in "partisan denial". It's hard to devalue one's own statement more than that.

I think I would be right to assume you that you are not at all unintelligent or incapable of reasoning and are probably very educated, so I assume you make statements like these out of sheer habit, like a reflex, without really giving it much thought. We have to do better if we are to get anywhere, unless of course you really enjoy making statements like these, which I somehow don't think is the case.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[suutar]

The extra traffic is not due to netflix. It's due to netflix subscribers, i.e. me. If the cable company has an issue with how much data I'm causing to be put on the network they can come talk to me.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Archangel Michael]

Here's the deal Local ISPs are akin to local monopolies

THAT is the problem, and it is caused by government "Franchise agreements" that protect that monopoly. This is the government taking the "easy" way out, rather than doing what is best for their constituents. "Hey, lets create a monopoly, and enforce it with draconian laws".

This has ALWAYS been my case, that solving problems with competition, is always better than solving problems through authoritarian methods (see Monopoly). The solution is to eliminate the last mile monopoly. That should be done by LOCAL municipalities and is solvable in a number of different ways, but the easiest is to have the local municipality build out the last mile, and bring it to a COLO facility which then offers access to any number of providers. That way, the customer deals with JUST the provider for content, and the Municipality maintains the infrastructure, in the same way that the locals build and maintain roads and allows FEDEX, UPS and all sorts of others on the road, rather than telling everyone "You must you FEDEX, you don't have a choice!"

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Archangel Michael]

Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?

The source for the original problem(local monopoly) is what, exactly? If you say Comcast or Verizon or ATT or whatever, you're wrong. The source is government granting a Franchise Agreement. The solution most people want is more government to a government created problem. THE SOURCE is the problem of the last mile, and the current method of solving that is ... Franchise Agreements.

The REAL solution isn't more government, it is MORE CHOICE. The authoritarian methods being proposed today, don't offer me any more choices than before, and now I have to deal with the Federal Government mandates on top of shitty service from Comcast. How exactly is that better?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Because in most places there is precisely one cable company and one phone company. Nobody seems to want to build out another. If there's two cable companies in an area, they generally avoid competing directly with each other without performing provable anti-competitive collusion.

If you have a way to get more companies wanting to provide cable services, I'm listening. I'd like it to be actually demonstrated to work reasonably reliably, as opposed to some libertarian dream like "repeal it and they will come", particularly when we've already seen what happens when we repeal it.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Obfuscant]

If you get no spam today

I didn't say I get no spam today. The claim is that my ISP cannot do what it is doing, so obviously it is violating net neutrality as some people imagine it to mean. Thus, if we ever get NN in that definition, then my mailbox will be flooded with unreadable chicken scratch.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[bingoUV]

Given the present situation, yes, no provably illegal collusion is necessary because there were, in recent memory, monopoly encouraging laws in most places. So corporate culture can be said to have developed with assumptions that include no competition. Companies could also plausibly claim that they just haven't gotten around to actually competing yet, as competing had become legal recently.

Never having had the competition prohibiting laws in the first place, in large parts of the country, is one way to get more companies providing internet services. In the absence of a time machine, you'll need to wait for corporate culture to change, new companies appear on the scene, large companies changing ownership structures significantly etc. Entropy, in other words should eventually do the trick, eventually. Eventually = in the limit ( time) t tends to infinity.

Someone, somewhere, maybe around Halloween, would leak evidence of illegal collusion, and law enforcement could swoop in. Government can rectify its mistakes from the past. Iff, the grammar of the people does nor change to expressing companies in the singular. Once grammar has changed, the battle is lost. Because grammar fights against entropy for centuries, corrupting our way of thinking.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[F.Ultra]

If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect. The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims. I live in a country with NN and no ISP here have any problem what so ever with this, they can even block outgoing SMTP ports since they can show that this is done in order to minimize spam and attacks.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[Obfuscant]

If your ISP does something today then they can do that under NN since NN is currently is in effect.

You didn't bother reading what I wrote. The claim is that it violates NN today, as defined in certain stupid, incorrect ways. That's the point. The definition being used by some folks here would prevent it.

The only people claiming that ISP:s can no longer filter out spam or DDoS attacks and so on are only the anti NN lobbyists that are making false claims.

When someone claims that NN means that ISPs cannot "censor or discriminate by source" they are implicitly claiming that an ISP cannot filter spam by IP address. That's discriminating by IP address. It is not a false claim to say that the ISP would be prevented, because it is a fact. The false claim is the definition of NN.

It is not NN as currently being implemented that is at issue at all. It is the off-the-wall definitions being tossed about by people flaming about all the bad guy ISPs doing bad things and how the sky will fall if NN is not enforced by the FCC. NN as it exists says the ISP can do things that the nuts are ranting about the ISPs doing if NN is repealed. "If NN is repealed Comcast could do X and Y and yada yada yada", with the assumption that X or Y is automatically bad, and I'm just pointing out that Comcast can already do X and Y and that it isn't bad.

Please stop telling me what NN in your definition actually says they can do, because I know.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

I think I would be right to assume you that you are not at all unintelligent or incapable of reasoning and are probably very educated, so I assume you make statements like these out of sheer habit, like a reflex, without really giving it much thought.

Not habit, despair at the inability of so many people to recognize that an objective reality actually exists. Don't worry, though, you'll probably end up making everyone pay for your ignorance.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

You know, I've been thinking what you just said is for so many people at the core of the Trump division, not sex tapes, not Islam and transgender and what not, but the belief that objective reality actually exists on its own, independently of the observer. If you had said that even before the Republicans comment I would have thought you probably think Trump's presidency is a nightmare for you. All our disagreements stem from that core, metaphysical belief.

So if you'd indulge me, you make a claim that such objective reality exists. In science, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that it's true. How would you go about presenting that proof?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

If you had said that even before the Republicans comment I would have thought you probably think Trump's presidency is a nightmare for you.

Trump's not a nightmare, he's a tragedy. He's the gun in America's mouth, and you're part of the crowd chanting "Pull the trigger!".

So if you'd indulge me, you make a claim that such objective reality exists. In science, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that it's true. How would you go about presenting that proof?

That's an interesting challenge, however, the only way to prove that you are a brain-in-a-box is to do something so monumentally stupid that it must kill you, because if you do not die, then reality must be a hoax. Unfortunately, that means the flip side is that the only way to prove you are not a brain-in-a-box, is to actually kill you because everything else could be faked. It's a less than satisfying answer to the paradox. Of course, there is an alternative. Most people decide that it does matter whether or not they are a brain-in-a-box and live their life as if an objective reality actually exists outside their perceptions. Now that's what most people who ever consider the problem do, but I suppose each person must choose their own path.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

So essentially you are saying that your conviction that objective reality exists is beyond possible proof, therefore it is completely metaphysical, just like say people of faith believe in God, but you are somehow the one who is correct in his view because...?

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[F.Ultra]

That is not MY definition of NN, that is the common definition of NN. If any one else claims otherwise they are only using it as a scare tactic against NN aka FUD. Look at the actual NN legislation and you will see that there are nothing in there that prevents ISPs from filtering out bad traffic.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[skam240]

The source for your original problem is government trying to find a solution rooted in private enterprise. Connecting everyone, particularly in such a spread out country as the US, is too expensive for the private sector to find profitable. Local governments granted franchise agreements in order to get the private sector to provide the services they wanted. It's ironic now that many local governments realize this was a mistake and now are having their own home grown internet services / attempts to bring more private competition in, squashed at the state level by the devils they created.

More government is a perfectly viable solution in this situation as we are talking about services that any rational person consider public utilities. These are services every adult and child need if they are to compete in the modern workforce. Just as maintaining basic rights is an important function of government as a means of guaranteeing general equality so is maintaining the basics of what it takes to compete in modern society. A child born in a poor remote location shouldn't be doomed to poverty because giving them proper resources isn't profitable.

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

So essentially you are saying that your conviction that objective reality exists is beyond possible proof, therefore it is completely metaphysical, just like say people of faith believe in God, but you are somehow the one who is correct in his view because...?

Oh no. Not at all. You completely failed to understand my rambling. I'm saying all of the evidence indicates that there is an objective reality, and while we can not completely rule out that reality is a hoax perpetuated by a perfectly omniscient and omnipresent force, why would we believe that when there is no evidence at all to indicate that that is the case.

So given that you apparently don't think that an objective reality exists, what do you think and what evidence do you have to back you your theory?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Wait wait. You say all the evidence points out to existence of objective reality, but when I asked you for it, you admitted it's a paradox and can't be proven.

I have then said that your claim is a metaphysical belief no more -- and no less, please read again -- based in reasoning that faith in God. Therefore I have nothing to prove because I never claimed there is evidence that God "exists" (nor that such claim has meaning but that's a different story).

So of the two of us, you are the only one who claims there is evidence for one view in particular, that of objective reality existing independently of the observer. Care to try to show the proof again?

Re:He's confusing free speech with Net Neutrality

[tbannist]

Wait wait. You say all the evidence points out to existence of objective reality, but when I asked you for it, you admitted it's a paradox and can't be proven.

You clearly didn't follow my explanation. It can be proven, but if you're wrong and reality exist, you'll be dead.

I have then said that your claim is a metaphysical belief no more -- and no less, please read again -- based in reasoning that faith in God.

That seems like a stretch, from the belief that what we see is real, to the belief that what we do not see is real. Other than having an element of belief there seems to be little in common between those points.

herefore I have nothing to prove because I never claimed there is evidence that God "exists" (nor that such claim has meaning but that's a different story).

I didn't say you did, I asked you what you believe.

So of the two of us, you are the only one who claims there is evidence for one view in particular, that of objective reality existing independently of the observer. Care to try to show the proof again?

I asked you for your alternative to objective reality, and the evidence you have to support it. Science is, after all, at it's core about competing theories and choosing the one which the evidence supports best. It's not about being "right", it's about the struggle to always be "less wrong".

Political appointee criticizes political opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

Film at 11

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.

Re:Malevolence

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Seems to be a theme within the current Administration.

Re:Malevolence

[thaylin]

Yes, lets get them out of clean water, water, let the companies poison you with immunity.. Wait, you want them regulating those?

Re:Malevolence

[nightfire-unique]

I am with Ajit Pai on this for the following reasons: private property owners must not be oppressed by any form of business regulations. That's my position on regulations.

I agree with you with one critical stipulation:

The abandonment of regulation must be a complete "atomic" transaction.

If the radio spectrum is suddenly a free-for-all, such that I'm able to erect and operate a 10,000W transmitter and establish my own Internet links, and rules governing access to established wirelines are abandoned so that I can use the dark fiber I paid for through previously collected taxes, then fine.

But the dissolution of regulation must happen all at once.

What's not okay is the removal of regulations on communication providers without the associated removal of privileges they enjoy.

Re:Malevolence

[Hal_Porter]

Isn't the Flint water crisis an example of the government - Flint City Council - poisoning people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Though a private monopoly could do in theory do the same thing. However you could sue a private company, even a monopoly more easily than a government entity which can claim sovereign immunity or an individual politician who could claim official immunity.

I.e. the government can pretty much poison you without fear of a lawsuit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On November 13, 2015, four families filed a federal class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit against Governor Rick Snyder and thirteen other city and state officials, including former Flint Mayor Dayne Walling and ex-emergency financial manager Darnell Earley, who was in charge of the city when the switch to the Flint River was made. The complaint alleges that the officials acted recklessly and negligently, leading to serious injuries from lead poisoning, including autoimmune disorders, skin lesions, and "brain fog."[220][221][222] The complaint says that the officials' conduct was "reckless and outrageous" and "shocks the conscience and was deliberately indifferent to ... constitutional rights."[222] The case was dismissed on February 3, 2017, with the judge stating his court has lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the matter. Their attorneys filed an appeal on February 6.[223][224]

The legal doctrines of sovereign immunity (which protects the state from suit) and official immunity (which in Michigan shields top government officials from personal liability, even in cases of gross negligence) resulted in comparatively few lawsuits being filed in the Flint case, and caused large national plaintiffs' law firms to be reluctant to become involved with the case.[225]

Re:Malevolence

[dywolf]

Translation: you're an idiot.

Re:Malevolence

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Hear, hear.

Re:Malevolence

[Trogre]

So why did Obama appoint him?

Honest question.

Re:Malevolence

[tbannist]

Because Obama had to appoint a Republican to the committee, and sadly Ajit Pai was the least bad candidate on the Republican list.

Re:Malevolence

[david_thornley]

Isn't the Flint water crisis an example of the government - Flint City Council - poisoning people?

The Flint City Council had no say in the matter. The city went bankrupt, The State government took over, and made the water deal over the objections of the city government, and apparently for no financial gain. Let's get the villains right here.

Re:Malevolence

[Hal_Porter]

Right, but it was still 'the Government', right? I.e. it was a public sector entity not a private sector one.

Re:Malevolence

[david_thornley]

Flint was a special abhorrent case. You might as well say that it's too dangerous to go out at night because someone in the country got murdered last night. For another special abhorrent case, see the Bhopal disaster, which was a private sector mass homicide.

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?

Re:Interesting comparison

[Bryansix]

Ya, his use of logical fallacies is off the charts. This is a major red herring. Free speech on the Internet is an issue but the solution is to apply net neutrality to social media as well, not to get rid of net neutrality altogether.

Re:Interesting comparison

[slashmydots]

There's a third factor you're not considering here though and that's Verizon money.

Re:Interesting comparison

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, you got it right. He's not making a consistent argument; he's trying to poison the well.

I support Net Neutrality--its one of the few simple and obvious issues out there--and would introduce a bill charging the FCC with regulating the Internet to ensure equal treatment of access to all services from any given customer, save for configuration to prioritize (not accelerate) time-sensitive traffic (streaming, voice) and de-prioritize (not throttle) non-sensitive bulk traffic.

There are technical details which we can abstract to general details: balanced, equal priority between customers; greater delivery priority for time-sensitive packets. No throttling back a given service or making it so a certain user streaming Hulu is getting bandwidth at the expense of the next house over streaming Netflix.

I support Net Neutrality because the voters in my district are tired of Congressmen who won't push progressive policy policy; we want solutions and actions. It's time for a renewed focus in Congress on well-developed policies using the input of experts instead of political showmanship; and I'm asking you to support me with a modest commitment to my campaign. Even just $10/month helps me reach thousands of additional voters this term.

Re:Interesting comparison

[thaylin]

The problem is twitter is a message board, they can regulate that board as they see fit, especially when free, but pipes are not the same thing. I dont pay TWC to access only the internet content that they want me to see, typically only their other paid content.

Re:Interesting comparison

[EndlessNameless]

Inconsistent reasoning is an epidemic among lobbyists, shills, and captured regulatory authorities.

Re:Interesting comparison

[Bryansix]

If only 5 companies control 99% of social media and one of those companies is also the provider of most of the hosting on the Internet, how much will it matter if you can access any site if all the other sites are irrelevant and attract no users. As an example, Gab was basically extorted by Google for not banning more people. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Re:Interesting comparison

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, I'm using CrowdPAC instead of something like GoFundMe to comply with FEC rules. There's also ActBlue for similar purpose. These have been vetted by the FEC and ensure that contributors don't exceed FEC limits; they also all carry proper disclaimers.

So yes, I'm fully in compliance with all state and federal election rules. What was your question?

Re:Interesting comparison

[Green Mountain Bot]

Twitter is not internet service. They do not provide internet service. The idea that they provide any service at all is debatable, but whatever service they do provide is NOT internet service.

Re:Interesting comparison

[Bryansix]

No, I didn't say that. Nice strawman though.

Re:Interesting comparison

[Khyber]

How is a website on the internet, whose primary function is to help you to post something to a group of people, not considered a service?

service
srvs
1.
the action of helping or doing work for someone.

Re:Interesting comparison

[david_thornley]

If five companies control most of the social media, that may be a problem (although broadband is normally supplied by one of two companies in the US, so that's about 2.5 times as bad). However, if you want to start your own social media company, in the presence of Net Neutrality, you've got a shot at becoming a major company. Facebook hasn't dominated since the start of the Web, after all. It pushed MySpace out of the big time, and another company could push Facebook out.

However, in the absence of NN, the ISPs could charge social media companies for carrying their traffic. This wouldn't be a problem for Facebook, but it would be a major problem for your startup.

Social media concentration is a market issue, and can be decided by market forces. There's always another company trying to go big. Net Neutrality can't be decided by market forces, unless there's a functioning market without big barriers to entry.

By definition.

[Walter White]

Ajit Pai is a tool.

From Cher to Twitter

[mi]

All I know about Net Neutrality I learned from Cher and other entertainers via Twitter. And I am outraged.

Talk about spin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Picking on Twitter was easy. It's a social platform where ideas and thoughts are always going to be "shaped" by the owners(controllers) how they see fit.

This is not the issue at hand!

The issue is that by removing the NN protections companies like Comcast, Verizon, etc.. will be able to determine how much it costs for me(and you) to be able to even access Twitter, or how quickly I will be able access it. Whether Twitter is a platform that silences or shapes speech has nothing to do with the current NN regulations.

Re:Talk about spin!

[Bryansix]

Your premise is false but your conclusion is correct. We don't need to assume that the owners of social media will always "Shape" the thoughts and ideas of it's users. They shouldn't do that. They should concentrate on taking down illegal content and stopping legitimate harassment. Even then, a simple mute button is quite sufficient. Banning people for ideas is a bad idea.

However, I agree that Net Neutrality is not affected by the red herring of free speech in the way Pai says it is.

How are these related?

[Known Nutter]

"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."

If Twitter is part of the problem, is he seriously suggesting that government insert itself further into the process to regulate them? Doesn't this statement contradict the goals of his effort to get rid of NN?

And how does a free and open Internet have anything to do with Twitter discriminating (or not)? Perhaps Pai should promote the idea of a Free and Open Twitter instead? That would seem to make more sense.

This whole statement is a smoke-screen and total deflection of the real underlying issue, which is equal and open access to the Internet and all things on it, simply stated.

He shouldn't even be commenting about Twitter -- at all. Twitter is not in his purview. The service providers are. The ones he is attempting to cut loose from the same type of regulation he seems to imply Twitter should be under. Are we in a Bizarro World here, or what?

Petition the White House.

[sharkbiter]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-net-neutrality
And while you're there:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-call-resignation-fcc-chairman-ajit-varadaraj-pai

Let's cut the cancer out at the source.

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.

Re:Wrong.

[davide marney]

Try to keep up. The guy didn't say he was redefining net neutrality, he said, and I quote, "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."

So: he has CHANGED the topic on you. He's no longer talking about net neutrality, he's talking about regulatory capture.

Re:Wrong.

[skids]

The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.

Re:Wrong.

[Bryansix]

Just curious. Can you cite some sources to back up your assertions?

Re: Wrong.

[Zero__Kelvin]

Net Neutrality is like pornography... Even if I cannot define it I know it when I see it.

Re:Wrong.

[i286NiNJA]

If there is anything wrong with net neutrality we have plenty of time to figure it out before next time they try to suppress it. If at any point net neutrality isn't in the best interests of the american consumer, I am sure that Pai will give us ample opportunity to do away with it.

Re:Wrong.

[PopeRatzo]

The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.

This is what the alt-right and "fake news" would want you to believe. "Nothing has meaning, so any bad thing we do can be framed as good. The truth cannot be known, so just believe Trump."

In fact, there are clear and concise definitions of Net Neutrality to be had. Found this easily.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net...

Re:Wrong.

[spun]

That's even more nonsensical. What regulations have captured what markets for which firms now?

Re:Wrong.

[spun]

Of course I can.

Re:Wrong.

[BlueStrat]

The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.

This is what the alt-right and "fake news" would want you to believe. "Nothing has meaning, so any bad thing we do can be framed as good. The truth cannot be known, so just believe Trump."

In fact, there are clear and concise definitions of Net Neutrality to be had. Found this easily.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]

But, you just proved his point by linking to yet another group's definition. Nothing to do with 'alt-right' or 'fake news' (whatever those terms are supposed to mean today as opposed to last week's definitions).

Look, I agree there needs to be protections put in place to prevent market abuses, but that's a trade issue that should be handled by the FTC, not the FCC. Congress passed a law that forbid the FCC from regulating the internet as it was 'information technology'. The FCC under Tom Wheeler(D)isney up and decided they'd just 'reclassify' the internet all on their own, side-stepping Congress and the law, and declare it under FCC jurisdiction.

Besides such reclassification being outside the powers of the FCC, ISPs being classified as common-carriers like telcos means they fall under CALEA requirements mandating law enforcement (and Homeland Security/TLAs) access and ability to intercept/decrypt all traffic (it's illegal for example to use a voice-scrambler on the US phone network as it prevents LEAs from being able to listen in).

Don't destroy the internet in order to save the internet. Do it the right way and have Congress pass legislation.

Strat

Re:Wrong.

[PopeRatzo]

But, you just proved his point by linking to yet another group's definition.

No, Strat. It's not "yet another group". It's the group that's been spearheading the fight to educate and advocate for Net Neutrality.

If you want to find out what something is, don't you think the people that asking the people who know most about it would be a good place to start?

Do it the right way and have Congress pass legislation.

The fight is young. Legislation is the way to go, but first we're going to have to get those Republican jackoffs out of there.

Re:Wrong.

[fafalone]

Besides such reclassification being outside the powers of the FCC, ISPs being classified as common-carriers like telcos means they fall under CALEA requirements mandating law enforcement (and Homeland Security/TLAs) access and ability to intercept/decrypt all traffic (it's illegal for example to use a voice-scrambler on the US phone network as it prevents LEAs from being able to listen in).

Law enforcement already can intercept all your traffic and nothing in the NN policy forced anyone to abandon any existing security that interferes. That's another false scare argument from the right. You're taking it even farther implying it would mandate crypto backdoors, that's fucking stupid and you know it. You're not an idiot so I can only assume you're being malicious.

Re:Wrong.

[BlueStrat]

But, you just proved his point by linking to yet another group's definition.

No, Strat. It's not "yet another group". It's the group that's been spearheading the fight to educate and advocate for Net Neutrality.

Sorry, but it is still only one of the groups and one of the definitions of NN. They are but one lobbying group. And, I'll guarantee you whatever FTC/FCC/Congressional Act/law/etc they call 'NN' that is finally enacted will not be the same thing the EFF is advocating for. There's entirely too much wealth & power at stake, and our government and leadership are entirely too corrupt, for it to be any other way.

Do it the right way and have Congress pass legislation.

The fight is young. Legislation is the way to go, but first we're going to have to get those Republican jackoffs out of there.

Fine, if you convince enough people to vote for politicians who are in favor, that's how it's supposed to work. Not by having a Federal Agency just expand it's own powers and scope by fiat and then attempt to use the power of the mob to make it stick. That's not democracy, that's banana-republic 'might makes right' populism. That very quickly leads to creating very dark history. We don't need more of that, thanks.

Strat

Re:Wrong.

[shilly]

Um, regulatory capture refers to the process by which *regulators* (not regulations) start acting in the interests of the institutions they are supposed to regulate, instead of the public interest. In this instance, when Ajit Pai pushes the FCC to deliver for Comcast, rather than delivering for US citizens. One way that a regulator might act in the interests of producers is by changing regulations, but there are many other ways, including public advocacy and attacking opposing commercial interests. That is the essence of what Pai is doing here.

If you don't know what a term means, best not to complain about someone else's use of it.

Re:Wrong.

[spun]

I know what the term regulatory capture means and I realize that's what Pai is doing. Yes, we can assume that Comcast and other ISPs have captured the FCC. My point is that the original AC I was responding to is conflating free speech and net neutrality, which are simply not the same thing. Then someone else chimed in, trying to explain what the original AC was saying. I found that explanation lacking, and a bit vague, thus my quizzical phrasing.

This is the post we are commenting on:

"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."

So, where in that do YOU see commentary on regulatory capture? I don't see it.

Re:Wrong.

[spun]

Uh, the original AC I was responding to seemed in favor of repealing net neutrality. Someone else came along and explained the ACs post in terms of regulatory capture. It had nothing to do with regulatory capture, it was an idiotic post conflating free speech with net neutrality, and claiming that somehow, net neutrality endangers free speech. It doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.

Re:Wrong.

[shilly]

The post you quoted was not the OP. It was a response to the OP, and the OP's subject line was "He's [Pai is] confusing free speech with Net Neutrality".

The guy who chimed in, in response to you, referred back to that quote and quoted more of what Pai said, to make the point that Pai was an example of regulatory capture.

Anyway, we should leave this. It's a very meta- debate.

He has a point

[zippo01]

I agree with him that poorly phrased net neutrality laws prevent competition. Competition is what will truly keep the internet open and free. Look at T-Mobile and Sprint in the cell phone market. The government motives change and swing, and many of up have no idea what they are. Business? I know what they want, my money. They will do what they need to to make sure they get it. Instead of fighting for net neutrality, we should be encouraging competition, co-ops, open pole access, etc. The cost to market but you can't tell me if it was easy, google and amazon wouldn't do it to protect themselves.

Re:He has a point

[mcmonkey]

No, he doesn't. And no, it won't.

If the answer is competition, then why support the change that is guaranteed to reduce competition?

Re:He has a point

[SlaveToTheGrind]

the change that is guaranteed to reduce competition

Citation needed, don'tcha think? This libertarian think tank says exactly the opposite.

Re:He has a point

[ausekilis]

I can agree with Pai in this line of thought. Net Neutrality, as written, may be impeding competition and keeping prices artificially high. Pai has also openly said he wants to prevent municipal broadband by removing state's ability to create their own laws.
 
I could back him if he was actively encouraging competition, be it by placing ISPs into common carrier status, or treating internet infrastructure as a utility - like municipal broadband or competitive contracts like your local power company(ies). Instead we get the status quo, one or two providers that can collude their prices for a majority of the U.S. with no incentive to compete.

Re:He has a point

[zippo01]

Nice.

Re:He has a point

[Cederic]

Pai has also openly said he wants to prevent municipal broadband by removing state's ability to create their own laws.

This is what tells me he's got absolutely no interest in benefits for normal people, and that casts massive doubt on his motives for changing the FCC approach to net neutrality.

This isn't even ideological. This feels corrupt.

Re:He has a point

[david_thornley]

That libertarian think tank starts lying in the first sentence: "At long last, with the end of “net neutrality,” competition could soon come to the industry that delivers Internet services to you.". Competition isn't coming, guys. It's a natural monopoly, and the only reasons it's a duopoly are historical. It then, of course, proceeds to twist Net Neutrality into a pretzel in order to come out against it.

Whoever wrote that is an idiot or a liar, and I'm not using an exclusive or here.

Re:He has a point

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Competition isn't coming, guys. It's a natural monopoly, and the only reasons it's a duopoly are historical

So bottom line you agree it's at least a duopoly -- it's not clear why the historical reasons for that would make a difference here.

Even if we pretend there can't be meaningful competition between duopolists, you're ignoring the emergence of fiber along with near-pervasive wireless coverage (and if 4G for some reason isn't fast enough for you, 5G certainly should be).

Re:He has a point

[david_thornley]

The historical reasons are why a natural monopoly turned into a duopoly.

There can be meaningful competition in a duopoly, but it's nowhere near a sure thing. You can easily see that in the US airlines and cell phone services, and those have more than two players in a market. What seems to foster competition in a limited market is ease of entry, so someone can come into a moribund field and offer something new and different.

The emergence of fiber is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Fiber does not fall as the gentle rain from heaven. It has to be installed, needs a lot of connections and branches, and needs rights of way. Fiber doesn't mean that there's new competition; it means that the phone company can sell me something better than DSL.

typical deflection and redirection

[kbdd]

What he says is true but not the point. Maybe he should fix that too.
Simply giving the power to the ISPs to do the same is certainly not going to help...
The big difference to me is that while I depend on Google and other big tech services, I am not obligated to use them and if I wanted to, there are alternatives or I could simply stop using them (like I have done with my cable TV provider). However, I have only one ISP in my area (at least only one that has more than 3Mb/s data transfer rate) so I have no option if I do not like what he does. I am stuck with it and this ISP definitely falls into the definition of a common carrier.

Re:typical deflection and redirection

[Strider-]

The only real solution, which will never happen, is to force a full separation of service and content. This should apply to both Internet service, and video/TV services.

Re:typical deflection and redirection

[slothman32]

I'm not disagreeing but that would mean journalists for newspapers, what are they, and even TV news would count as contractors.
They actually would just read stories from paper.

Re:Discrimination?

[Bryansix]

Do you frequently just believe the first thing you read about somebody? Even Steve Bannon's former employee, Ben Shapiro doesn't think Bannon is racist or a white supremacist. Maybe you should do some fact checking before being so gullible. http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

Let's be clear...

[Tulsa_Time]

"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."

He is not equating NN with Twitter being biased... he is simply pointing out that those who argue for NN ARE behaving biased.ways ... a separate criticism.

 

Re:Let's be clear...

[david_thornley]

So? As long as there's NN Twitter is subject to market forces, since another company could come along and eat their lunch. Without NN, Twitter can collude with ISPs to squash the competition.

Classic Whataboutism

[MountainLogic]

Rather than state as his solution that having more and innovative options to twitter to support more view points, as Net Neutrality supports, he just said what about something unrelated. Classic way to deflect those without critical reasoning skills. Personally, I've offended by such tactics. Just be honest, that you believe consolidation of media into the hands of a very few oligarchs for their enrichment and consolidation of power is what you are proposing and be intellectually honest.

Re:Racists for Net Neutrality

[thaylin]

I would take that bet since these are anonymous and could be, and probably are, members of the alt right.

Cheating the rules

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act)
FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish)
FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010)
FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015)
FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)

It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?

Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.

That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.

The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.

What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.

What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.

Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.

It's the "rule of man" instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.

Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.

Re:Cheating the rules

[nightfire-unique]

I've never heard this perspective before. Interesting.

Re:Cheating the rules

[techno_dan]

You say that the rule of law should apply, but big business controls congress. Is that not cheating? Currently big $ controls all levels of government. Big $ will never let rules that restrict their ability to control government so therefore would never allow true net neutrality through congress. Only way is to cheat the system, since the system refuses to work for the people.

Re:Cheating the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

So, big business controls the government, but you want to give more power to the government because somehow that would inhibit big business?

Are you high?

Re:Cheating the rules

[Green Mountain Bot]

Regulating ISPs != Regulating the internet

Re:Cheating the rules

[tipo159]

The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.

That is not how it works. Congress passes laws and federal agencies, like the FCC, create regulations to implement those laws.

Re:Cheating the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to mention that up until 2003, cable was Title II. DSL was changed in 2005 after a court ruled the FCC had the authority to make the transition on cable. The 2015 order was returning things to the way they were before since the ISPs had proven they could not be trusted to uphold net-neutrality voluntarily.

Re:Cheating the rules

[dywolf]

bullshit.

Re:Cheating the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no need to fix anything. It's not broken. Internet service providers are not "Information Services" under the 1996 act.

`(41) INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

Twitter, Facebook, and Google are all information services. AT&T and Comcast are not.

`(48) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- The term `telecommunications' means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
`(49) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER- The term `telecommunications carrier' means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage.

AT&T and Comcast are to be treated as common carriers to the extent that they provide telecommunications services. Unrelated business operations are not under the restrictions of this act.

`(d) PRICING STANDARDS-
`(1) INTERCONNECTION AND NETWORK ELEMENT CHARGES
Determinations by a State commission of the just and reasonable rate for the interconnection of facilities and equipment for purposes of subsection (c)(2) of section 251, and the just and reasonable rate for network elements for purposes of subsection (c)(3) of such section--
`(A) shall be--
`(i) based on the cost (determined without reference to a rate-of-return or other rate-based proceeding) of providing the interconnection or network element (whichever is applicable), and
`(ii) nondiscriminatory, and
`(B) may include a reasonable profit.

Interconnection pricing must be nondiscriminatory. If you're going to charge one company for an interconnection point, you have to charge everyone.

`SEC. 253. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY.
`(a) IN GENERAL- No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
`(b) STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY- Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
`(c) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY- Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.
`(d) PREEMPTION- If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the e

Re:Cheating the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, because one of the things the 1996 telecommunications act did was mandate line-sharing to foster last-mile competition. It worked, too, until that part got nullified by the courts. Not sure how you can square that with no regulation.

Re:Cheating the rules

[deathguppie]

So what you are saying is that you don't like the way that rules against baby eating were put in place, therefore people should be allowed to eat babys.

Never mind the fact that designating title II is clearly within the mandate of the FCC. That mandate was put in place by congress. Congress regulates tittle II only through the mandate specifically given to the FCC. You are also ignoring the fact that the reason for the FCC's decision to apply title II was sparked by a request from the FTC who does not have the authority to go after ISP's for anticompetitive behavior and the fact that the court rulings specifically told the FCC that without applying title II designation they had no authority to deal with said behavior. It was only after a string of bad behavior by ISP's that led to reaction by the FCC and the court cases that title II designation was given to ISP's. The same designation that your phone company, water company, and power companies have had for almost a century.

Your not adding reason to the argument just a strange obfuscation of the facts

He doesn't.

[aepervius]

The theater play is for the republican base. He almost certainly does know this is not about free speech, but about money. But he is a (ex verizon) lawyer foremost , and he is spinning and selling a tale to the prole, not to the techie and firms.

Re:He doesn't.

[dcw3]

The "republican base" doesn't give a flying fuck about net neutrality, Certainly some corporate lobbyist donors do, and that's the crux of the problem.

Re:He is 100% right

[Riceballsan]

Nobody's fighting for facebook, twitter and google. (well maybe facebook, twitter and google). We are fighting with facebook, twiter and google for freedom of the internet. Lets go godwin here... Just because we fought the Nazi's, doesn't mean we saw the soviet union as good guys.

Ajitprop

[flopsquad]

Truth: Companies may have, or be perceived as having, biases on various social and political issues. This is true for everyone from Facebook to Fox Entertainment Group to Chick-fil-A.

Truth: This has fuckall to do with rolling back net neutrality.

Don't you hate it when someone

[davide marney]

moves the conversation to a broader scope, and then someone chimes in with a detailed critique of how the conversation no longer is about the smaller issue, so the speaker is obviously "wrong"?

Re:Don't you hate it when someone

[Green Mountain Bot]

I hate it when someone changes the subject to avoid addressing the issue at hand, yes.

I can follow his logic, why can't you?

[Cajun Hell]

Twitter did a thing, and they're in favor of NN, therefore ISPs should control which sites you can visit. It's an airtight argument.

Re:He is 100% right

[thaylin]

You, and he are the idiots. We are not fighting for facebook, google, twitter, we are fighting for ourselves. we do not want our ISP, which in 100% of the cases we have no control over to be able to censor us, or other groups. We also do not want the next big idea to be prevented because they need to pay rent to the ISPs. We pay for access to the internet, not for access to the part of the internet they want us to see.

Pai has been listening to Rush Limbaugh again...

[GerryGilmore]

On his show yesterday, Limbaugh was trying to make the case that NN is a thinly-veiled attempt to use the government to force Netflix to promote Global Warning.(!) I'm serious - this is how delusional these idiots are! We are truly doomed.

Re:Racists for Net Neutrality

[mi]

I would take that bet since these are anonymous and could be, and probably are, members of the alt right.

Wow... Do you really believe, your Left colleagues are all innocent of such sentiment? No, if you read the rest of the each comment — and other ones like it — you'll be disabused of your naivette. The constant references to genitalia and threats of rape are a dead give-away for your brethren — both "alt-" and mainstream Left.

But I do agree about it being impossible to verify. Which kinda invalidates the entire idea of "public feedback", does not it?

When you think everybody but you is an idiot...

[wardrich86]

...maybe it's time to step back and reconsider who the idiot might really be.

Tone Deaf

[cmaurand]

Ajit Pai is tone deaf.

Re:Discrimination?

[swb]

The guy is named Ajit Pai and has the power to fundamentally alter the nature of the Internet. If there's so much white supremacy in the federal government, who let this non-white guy call the shots?

Time for Google, Facebook, and Twitter to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Between all the tech giants, somebody can find some dirt on this guy and get him out of the picture.

Need more info about the internet 'underbelly'.

[Mr307]

On the surface it seems really simple just to say 'Net Neutrality is obviously good because reasons', and I agree with most of the reasons I have found.

But I look a step or 2 deeper and there does appear to be some legitimate questions about competition and internet nuts and bolts type stuff that we may all take for granted.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Maybe there are some people here who can give some insight or add some nuance to the 'underbelly' of the Net Neutrality question.

It's too late once the attack reaches the target

[raymorris]

> Hell a firewall breaks net neutrality's basic tenant.

> No, it doesn't. It's almost like you don't understand the principles at all.
> NN deals with ISPs and other public network operators. It has no bearing on how you secure your own boundary.

That makes sense. If you have no idea how spam, DOS, etc work.

A very typical DOS attack has the attacker sending small DNS requests to ten thousand different servers. The servers reply, sending the (larger) answer to the apparent source of the request. The source IP has been forged, though, so the replies all go to the victim. There are two good, easy solutions to amplification attacks, and then a bad solution that doesn't really work.

First, best solution:
By the time the request packets hit an internet backbone, the routers see that the source IP header doesn't match the network that connect to that port. In other words, they are forged. The backbone drops the traffic as it tries to enter. The packets therefore only exist on the attacker's side and maybe his local ISP - he's really just DOSing himself, using up his own resources in a failed attack.

Second best:
The backbone sees the flood of DNS requests coming from 40.8.10.213 and recognizes the attack. They drop DNS traffic, or all traffic, from the attacking IP. Once again, the attack doesn't get much past the attacker's network, so it does little damage other than wasting the attacker's time.

Failed "solution":
The victim sees they are being flooded with 100Mbps of DNS responses filling their internet connection. The packets are coming from all over the place. They start blocking the IPs where the packets came from (the servers of major web sites) at their local firewall. All that accomplishes is that their users can no longer access any of the web sites which the attacker bounced packets from (thousands of legitimate web sites). It doesn't solve the problem that their internet connection has become useless because it's filled with reply packets that the attacker triggered. Blocking at the local firewall only makes things WORSE for most DOS attacks. The victim blocking at their firewall also doesn't help their ISPs network, which is being flooded. In fact, if the firewall is set to reject the flood packets, that's even worse for the ISP, who now gets to handle a bunch of icmp reject notices coming back.

Spam is similar. Spammers don't send all their spam directly from their office IP to the destination. That would make it trivial to block them, if all the millions of spams they sent out had the spammer's IP address. Instead the spammer's send their millions of spams through millions of open relays, proxies, bots, etc. You'll never be able to block every infected desktop that's being used to send spam. What someone (who operates a backbone) can easily block is the offices of the company that sends millions of spams, blocking them so they can't send the spam TO the open proxies, bots, etc. That block has to happen BEFORE they reach the millions of proxies - the spam office can't be allowed to send traffic across the backbone in the first place. One they've reached their 100,000 proxies or bots it's too late - it's 100,000 harder to stop at that point.

In general, it's several thousand times more effective to stop attacks and spam close to the source. It's just not possible for every internet user to daily update the millions of bots and relays that the bad guys use - and it wouldn't work of they did, because the DOS would still flood their internet connection offline.
--

Random text because Slashdot doesn't like posts which use the same words repeatedly. Therefore I now utilize some distinct ones which are not above. Horseradish tile shampoo towel Coca-Cola Mountain Dew mustard. Ketchup mayonnaise latex phenylketonurics and pulmonary restriction of the sciatic nerve. Tobacco products odorize gaseous atmospheres indoors. Communication protocol standard required committee approval meeting. Duplicative processes corporate requirements. Pumpkin fruit pie Thanksgiving whipped cream. Lemonade soda coffee tea. Marshmallows swimming in hydrogen monoxide soften quickly. Queso Blanco will be a good snack after I write arbitrary sentences to get around something silly.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[F.Ultra]

So Comcast have a broken market model where they sell more bandwith than they actually have (or they over sell it) and you think that some 3d party should pay Comcast for the difference? Remember that Netflix is only serving Comcasts customers, they are not forcing their data down Comcasts throat.

Re:Oh, look, a limey

[Hal_Porter]

Enjoy choosing one group of corrupt, authoritarian politicians over a slightly worse one come election day.

Except you don't get to choose because, like cable companies, US political parties have a regional monopoly.

Since when has Twitter been discriminating?

[jsepeta]

Twitter is part of the free and open internet, enabling Russian government operatives to participate in the 2016 US elections.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[Rutulian]

Yeah, and like you just said, that peering agreement is between level3 and Comcast, not Comcast and Netflix. If Comcast is no longer happy with that agreement, they are free to renegotiate it with level3, which will then likely pass on the additional costs to its customers, including Netflix. They can also throttle the bandwidth coming from level3 to enforce the agreement, which wil adversely affect all of level3's customers, including Netflix. And then level3 can then choose to do something about that, maybe by enforcing bandwidth caps, for example. Netflix can respond to that by paying Comcast to host their CDN, which would be cheaper (maybe) than paying level3's bandwidth cap penalty. Etc etc...

All of these are perfectly fine free market contract adjustments, where the contract service is defined as "connection to the Internet to send X data and receive Y data for Z price." If at any time the terms of the contract are exceeded, or one member of the party wants to change the contract, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Comcast does not have a contract with Netflix and wants to force them into one so that it can make money off of Netflix's successful business. It is quite literally a protection racket ("those are some nice bits you have there...wouldn't want anything to happen to them, eh?"), and that is what net neutrality is meant to stop.

The ISPs will likely end up hating Net Neutrality

[wasted]

From the way I see it, Net Neutrality protects an ISP from being responsible for the contents of the packets it carries. Once neutrality goes away, that protection goes away. So, once any company develops tech to selectively deliver packets, all ISPs will be expected to be able to filter out content that would be illegal, such as child pornography, or any pornography in a township that has declared such as illegal, or liquor ads in dry areas. Of course, the case(s) would need to make it to court. A small town mayor in a dry town may consider trying to figure out the logistics of passing a law in that town that fined telecommunications providers each time a liquor/beer ad makes it to a computer screen in that town. Enforcement against the big telecommunications providers might be an issue for the town, but the local providers might not fare as well.

Civil action would also be very likely. Companies could file lawsuits when malware (especially ransom-ware) makes it past the ISPs filters; as net-neutrality would be dead, a good lawyer could show that as the telecommunications provider had the opportunity and ability to filter packets and did not do so, and passively let damage occur to the plaintiff, the telecommunications company was negligent and therefore responsible for the thousands of lost hours of productivity that the corporation lost. Individuals in dry areas could file civil suits stating that they were offended by advertisements which are offensive to their faith.

Once the lawsuits start, the telecommunication companies would likely start blocking anything that could be offensive to anyone, or have a page display that asks that you acknowledge that the telecommunications provider is delivering content requested by you and that you agree not to hold them legally responsible for delivering the content that you are about to see.

The fact that Pai hasn't figured this out indicates that he has other motives or is not that bright. In either case, he needs to be removed from his position. Stockholders from the major telecommunications companies may want to start unloading stock shortly after the bill passes as the "this is good for me, right?" peak hits before everyone figures out that the telecommunications companies were not careful in what they wished for. Their CEOs and boards (if they supported this), may need to be voted out at the next stockholders meeting.

Or, I could be wrong. It is up to you to decide.

What's next, the N word?

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

Wow, they pulled the discrimination card...

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

> It is, if you're using your internet connection to replace TV, because TV content takes up a lot of bandwidth.

I don't think you understand how Comcast's digital cable TV gets to customers.

Hint: It's digital video over IP.

So when you have cable TV it's like Comcast is sending 140 HD video streams to your house at the same time 24 hours a day.

Exactly HOW...

[ChodaBoyUSA]

Exactly HOW does eliminating Net Neutrality and allowing ISPs to block or slow web site access prevent Facebook or Twitter of repressing other opinions??? Either he is stupid, or a an outright liar. (My money is on LIAR.)

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, just... no.
Itâ(TM)s like they are sending 1 Digital stream to their customer. You change the channel and get a different stream.
If Comcast canâ(TM)t afford to send me 100mbps constantly all month then they shouldnâ(TM)t have sold me 100mbps speed.
They should have sold me 25mbps and said, âoeit can occasionally go as high as 100mbpsâ if thatâ(TM)s the case.
I could give a rats ass what Comcast thinks of the data iâ(TM)m consuming. I didnâ(TM)t sign an agreement to use x type packets. I agreed to use the internet and they agreed to be the wire carrier. Simple as that.

so many guns in your country

[schleimkeim]

and no one brave enough to shoot the motherfucker.

Trump 2.0?

[MoarSauce123]

Is that Pai a carbon copy of Trump? You disagree with him and he throws a tantrum, rolls on the floor, starts screaming, and declares that everyone else is just a dirty liberal spewing fake news? Man...maybe I should be more like an obnoxious ass, seems to be the key to a big career.

Re:surreal

[MoarSauce123]

The current government is fine with the Internet consisting only of breitbart.com, foxnews.com and Trump's Twitter account. Rest assured that there will be a lot of variety. Just look how many different letters the URLs use!

Re:Fuck you, FCC

[Cederic]

If you want to avoid being racist about this, remove the word 'Indian' from your post. The rest still holds up perfectly.

As it is, whether you love them or not, you're being a twat.

ISPs should be consider utility companies!

[mingsy]

When you have as many things "connected" as you do plugged in, ISP's should be considered a utility. When having a safe, fast and reliable internet connection is increasingly as important as having a phone line or electricity, these companies should be regulated in similar ways. The electric company isn't allowed to charge some people more because they run a certain business. Gas companies shouldn't be allowed to offer better gas for certain customers.

Re:Discrimination?

[tbannist]

Even Steve Bannon's former employee, Ben Shapiro doesn't think Bannon is racist or a white supremacist.

For what it's worth, I don't believe Steve Bannon's a white supremacist. However, he is using the white supremacists to achieve his political goals which are strongly isolationist, xenophobic and nationalist. The racists and the white supremacists don't like immigrants, and that makes them useful to Bannon and his political goals, so he's now in the business of telling them what to think and who to attack.

FCC's Net Neutrality does not mean what you think

[VeriTea]

Some comments from Ajit Pai's speech:

First: what will the plan do?

When you cut through the legal terms and technical jargon, it’s very simple. The plan to restore Internet freedom will bring back the same legal framework that was governing the Internet three years ago today and that has governed the Internet for most of its existence.

Let me repeat this point. The plan will bring back the same framework that governed the Internet for most of its existence. If you’ve been reading some of the media coverage about the plan, this might be news to you. After all, returning to the legal framework for Internet regulation that was in place three years ago today doesn’t sound like “destroying the Internet” or “ending the Internet as we know it.” And it certainly isn’t good clickbait. But facts are stubborn things.

And here are some of those facts. Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we’ll simply reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework.

Now, I’m sure some of you out there are still thinking that there must be more to it than this. And I’ll confess that once the plan to restore Internet freedom is adopted, one thing will be different compared to three years ago. Consumers will be empowered by getting more information from Internet service providers (ISPs). My ISP transparency rule will be stronger than it was in 2014.

That’s the “what.” Next: why? Why am I proposing to return to the pre-2015 regulatory
framework? The most important reason is that it was an overwhelming success.

Think back to what the Internet looked like in 1996. E-mail was still the killer app. AOL was the most visited website. The top 20 sites included the homepages for four universities (Carnegie Mellon, Illinois, Michigan, and MIT). Forget about YouTube; just downloading a static webpage took 30 seconds, and you paid by the hour for access. And being online also tied up your phone line.

So how did we get from there to here?

As I said at the outset, a huge part of the answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As part of this landmark law, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of 2the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

They deliberately rejected thinking of the Internet as Ma Bell, or a water company, or a subway system. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build out wired and wireless networks throughout the United States. 28.8k modems eventually gave way to gigabit fiber connections.

U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs used this open platform to start companies that have become global giants. (Indeed, the five biggest companies in America today by market capitalization are Internet companies.) America’s Internet economy became the envy of the world, and the fact that the largest technology companies of the digital economy are homegrown has given us a key competitive advantage.

But then, in early 2015, the FCC chose a decidedly different course for the Internet. At the
urging of the Obama Administration, the FCC scrapped the tried-and-true, light touch regulation of the Internet and replaced it with heavy-handed micromanagement.

It did this despite the fact that the Internet wasn’t broken in 2015. There was no market failure that justified the regulatory sledgehammer of Title II. But no matter; 21st century

Re:You can't meme son.

[mikael]

That sounds like the job adverts for diversity coordinators and multicultural directors in with inner-city London councils. "Must speak native Tobagan, have first-hand experience of the problems of disabled people of color from Equatorial regions in a non-native European environment."
Lo and behold the only person qualified is the partner of the social director.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[TheReaperD]

Trolls work cheap.

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[F.Ultra]

How can Netflix serve Comcast's customers without forcing data down Comcast's throat?

You cannot see the contradiction in your very own statement? Seriously?

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[F.Ultra]

Allowing for Comcast to charge $10 extra for more bandwidth is not against Net Neutrality. The problem here is that Comcast is charging $60 for a specified service (i.e a specific bandwidth) that they cannot actually deliver and want an external 3d party to pay for Comcasts faulty market model.

Let's pretend that you start a Taxi service where your market model is that you sell unlimited fares for a fixed monthly cost.

Now way out in the industry district a fancy new disco/pizza/mall/whatever opens (because the rent out there are cheaper) and a lot of your customers use their unlimited fares to go back and forth between this place and their homes several times per day.

This pisses you off since you now realize that selling unlimited fares in the hopes that no one actually would take that up was a shitty market model and instead of changing your business model or charging a much higher price for this service, you try to make congress pass a law that this new hot place should pay your taxi business for your added traffic.

Now you can rename your taxi business Comcast.

Madlibs headline generator?

[eric_harris_76]

{organization} {jobtitle} {firstandllastname} Criticizes {pluraloforganizationtype} That Oppose His Efforts To {takeacontroversialnaction}

Golly. What a surprise.

I wonder if a person in that position might praise those who support their efforts?

Re: He's confusing free speech with Net Neutralit

[Etcetera]

The problem is that Comcast does not have a contract with Netflix and wants to force them into one so that it can make money off of Netflix's successful business. It is quite literally a protection racket ("those are some nice bits you have there...wouldn't want anything to happen to them, eh?"), and that is what net neutrality is meant to stop.

That's not the hysteria that people are spreading around, however.

Blocking is dumb. The Internet is designed to route around blocking, and Comcast knows this as well as any ISP employee does. Members of the public are already using VPNs in some place to get around geographic blocks to Netflix in some locations anyway and this use would simply accelerate. Comcast's ISP side are not the same as the Cable TV side and they're aware of this.

The arguments being made are either a) outright "censorship" of bad ideas (which is where Ajit Pai is absolutely right -- Google/Facebook has far more ability to meaningfully do this for the world than your particular ISP does), or b) QoS.

The problem with whining about QoS is that this is a legitimate technical decision an ISP might make for actual, bona-fide, service-provider reasons to ensure reasonable bandwidth. (Do you sign up for Internet on a plane? Congratulations, your Netflix is blocked there. You also don't have a reasonable "choice" at 35,000 feet. Go sue.) Alternatively, look at mobile ISPs -- they actually provide different cost plan structures and bandwidth allotments depending on how you want to access streaming media NOW and the market is healthy. This is a feature, not a bug.

With the added speeds of 4G LTE available in most populated areas of the US, and 5G (whatever tech is used) in the years to come, mobile data services are already able to match what expected broadband wireline services were able to provide only a few years ago -- and certainly within the FCC "broadband" definition in many cases, and at varying price-points.

Yes, truly rural customers might have few or 1 option, but that's been the case forever and is nothing new. Certainly nothing that's changed since 2015 when this rule came into affect.

The dumb, dumb arguments around Net Neutrality even here on places like Slashdot where techs should know better about the actually necessity of the regulation at this time boggles my mind. I'm sure the giant Social Media Services, communication platforms, and Google/Facebook advertising networks (which regulate the financial livelihood of 90% of the commercial ad-supported entities in tech and change policies on a whim) are glad to have the spotlight taken off of their arbitrary and potentially devastating behavior because someone thinks their cable company suddenly cares what website you personally go to.