FCC Chair Ajit Pai Falsely Claims Killing Net Neutrality Will Help Sick and Disabled People (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: One popular claim by the telecom sector is that net neutrality rules are somehow preventing people who are sick or disabled from gaining access to essential medical services they need to survive. Verizon, for example, has been trying to argue since at least 2014 that the FCC's net neutrality rules' ban on paid prioritization (which prevents ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy their way to a distinct network performance advantage over smaller competitors) harms the hearing impaired. That's much to the chagrin of groups that actually represent those constituents, who have consistently and repeatedly stated that this claim simply isn't true. Comcast lobbyists have also repeated this patently-false claim in their attempt to lift the FCC ban on unfair paid prioritization deals.

The claim that net neutrality rules hurt the sick also popped up in a recent facts-optional fact sheet the agency has been circulating to try and justify the agency's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" net neutrality repeal. In the FCC's current rules, the FCC was careful to distinguish between "Broadband Internet Access Services (BIAS)," which is general internet traffic like browsing, e-mail or app data and "Non-BIAS data services," which are often given prioritized, isolated capacity to ensure lower latency, better speed, and greater reliability. VoIP services, pacemakers, energy meters and all telemedicine applications fall under this category and are exempt from the rules. Despite the fact that the FCC's net neutrality rules clearly exempt medical services from the ban on uncompetitive paid prioritization, FCC boss Ajit Pai has consistently tried to claim otherwise. He did so again last week during a speech in which he attempted to defend his agency from the massive backlash to its assault on net neutrality. "By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization -- such as latency-sensitive telemedicine," Pai said. "By replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors."

Comments

That title

[sn0wflake]

Killing Net Neutrality certainly will disable people.

Re:That title

[ArmoredDragon]

It will sick AND disable them

Re:That title

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually going to agree with Pai on this one.

Killing net neutrality might be the kick in the head some people need to start voting for a party that helps sick and disabled instead of telling them to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and then leaves them to die.

Re:That title

[Joce640k]

"Paid prioritization" isn't the problem, it's the "unpaid deprioritization" that worries us.

Re:That title

[MoarSauce123]

Seems to be a common agreement among voters that it is perfectly fine to leave the sick and disabled to fend for themselves. Supposedly it is their fault for not having a rich daddy with a multi-million dollar real estate business or making a racket on Wall Street. There are plenty who fully agree with that approach and they will continue to vote for a party that promotes such ideas....with the expectation, of course, that when needed medical services will be available at little or no cost to them. If there is a charge, then it is clearly Obama's fault....or crooked Hillary...or the liberals...or Muslims...or whatever scapegoat happens to be convenient at the time. There will be no kick in the head. If the lack of net neutrality causes problems the argument will be made that Pai was an Obama appointee.

Re: That title

[Anonymous Coward]

Your head needs kicked:

Re:That title

[apoc.famine]

Could they not be the same thing?

Given a finite resource, once near capacity, paid prioritization is essentially the same as unpaid deprioritization. And there's limited reason to think that ISPs would not run everything near capacity, as we have ample evidence of this already.

In fact, there's a major financial benefit to them when net neutrality goes away to push ever closer to capacity. Every unpaid service that gets to "pay or die" status is a good one, because it either dies and frees up resources for your paid services, or it pays at which point you can either squeeze the unpaid more, or add just enough capacity to serve the new customer.

Now it's true that given a non-finite resource these aren't the same thing, and one could definitely see an artificial deprioritization to try to punish the freeloaders. However, the history of ISPs is that of capacity issues up the wazoo, so I'm skeptical that they would need to put in the effort to go this route. (But I bet they will anyway, because being evil is apparently their thing.)

Freudian slip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing net neutrality will indeed "disable people."

Re:Freudian slip?

[sittingnut]

"killing net neutrality will help disabled people"
says verizon, comcast, fcc, etc

"killing net neutrality will disable people."
says vice, google, facebook, etc

don't trust either.

Re:Freudian slip?

[PopeRatzo]

don't trust either.

Discernment of the truth is something that can be learned even at your advanced age. Don't give up and just accept that "both sides do it nobody can know what's real".

Re: Freudian slip?

[Anonymous Coward]

No there is no objective truth. Truth is established through violence and intimidation. If I hold a gun to you head and tell you the sky is orange you will agree with me that the sky is orange. Do this enough times with enough people all will agree the sky is orange. After all all the scientist say the sky is orange, it must be orange.

I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder who is paying him under the table?
That is the only explanation for his stand as far as I can see. It only helps the big ISPs and harms everyone else.
FYI, I'm in Australia.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Gadget_Guy]

Sorry, but you're already living the "dream". This can't extend to Australia because Australia doesn't have net neutrality laws to begin with.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

He is indian.....so it does not matter who is paying him :D

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's generally not the way it works as in most any political climate (this one might be an exception) such a blatant "laws for cash" schemes would usually result in resignations, court actions and political fallout. The tried and true method of getting government officials to give companies what they want is some lobbying followed by a cushy six/seven figure position at the companies in question after they "retire" from their government position. Pai himself isn't a stranger to this process as he has made the trip at least once, working for the DOJ, then for Verizon, then the FCC.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[ShanghaiBill]

I wonder who is paying him under the table?

Nobody is being paid under the table. That is not how the system works. The political donations by the telecoms to Republican politicians are perfectly legal and done openly ... as are the media industry's donations to the Democrats.

FYI, I'm in Australia.

That explains your misunderstanding. In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Jason Levine]

There was a Web Comic I saw once, which sadly I lost the link for, where a lobbyist comes into a Congressman's office and asks to donate some money in order to pass a bill. Horrified, the Congressman says that's not how he operates and for the lobbyist to come back in and try again. This time, the lobbyist says he's really concerned about some issue and wants a bill passed. Also, in a completely unrelated matter, he wants to make a big donation to the Congressman. This time the Congressman is satisfied because it's not bribery this time. (I really wish I could find that web comic.)

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking for it too. If you find it, please post.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is: http://www.gocomics.com/pearls...

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[pots]

In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.

Ha ha, no. In America it just isn't corruption if it isn't explicitly bribery with a clear quid pro quo agreement between the two parties. In America we have our own definitions for lots of words, some people call that "American exceptionalism."

it is fine, as the highly controversial Citizens United ruling said in 2010, for wealthy campaign contributors to expect that their dollars will buy “ingratiation or access” in governor’s mansions and statehouses

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[thegarbz]

I wonder who is paying him under the table?

An appreciable amount of people believe in a magical skydaddy.
A slight minority of Americans believe that Trump was the best choice for president.
Even here on Slashdot where we hold ourselves as members of a generally more intelligent crowd we get people who believe the world is red or blue and don't actually analyse issued on their merits or refuse that both sides of politics are wrong.

What I'm saying is, people don't need to be paid under the table. Some people are genuinely stupid.

Re:I hope this does not spread world wide!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the dude on the other side of the phone that says... "This is windows calling"

Will also save children and fight terrorism

[gweihir]

And, who knows, maybe also stop drug use, illiteracy, stop global warming and fix the infrastructure.

It is fascinating what utterly despicable failed human beings make it to the top in the west today. Having people with zero honor and zero personal morals in charge used to be a privilege of the developing world. Not anymore.

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[rahvin112]

He's got to try to justify something he's doing which goes so far against the goals he claims he's trying to support and the mandate of FCC or his transparent attempt at a payday once leaving the FCC would be even more obvious.

Pai doesn't give two shits about the internet, the FCC's mandate or the public, he's simply trying to guarantee his own payday once he leaves the FCC. With 80+% of the comments on his net neutrality rollback against the action and his blatant disregard of this it's obvious he doesn't care at all what the public thinks or the mandate congress gave the FCC. The FCC actually refused to even address any comment that wasn't written by a lawyer and referenced specific laws, which was actually in violation of federal public comment rules.

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[bonedonut]

and teen pregnancy! don't forget teen pregnancy!

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Which law? If it is Indian law, then you missed to add that any gift over $100 would be accepted without question :D

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Ijit Pie is trying to justify something that in fact is not justifiable. Most Americans that know anything about the issue want the current NN rules to stay in place. So do pretty much all businesses except the big ISPs. Lets follow the money here...who would profit most from a repeal of the current NN rules? The big ISPs. Ijit Pie has obviously been bought and paid for. By Whom you ask? Follow the money!

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if someone tells the president that network neutrality causes global warming then he might change his mind and support it.

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[Rick Schumann]

And, who knows, maybe also stop drug use, illiteracy, stop global warming and fix the infrastructure.

You forgot "will make colors brighter, and food taste better".

Would some women he's sexually assaulted please step up and accuse him of the crimes he's committed against them, so we can get him thrown out? Thanks.

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Roy Moore is helping him with that...by wearing a condom.

NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[AHuxley]

Want to start a new network?
Have to show the federal government that your service is federally NN compliant.
Got all the experts, lawyers, hardware and software in place to prove NN is supported to some US gov standard?
While all that is been worked out the monopoly telco stays in place and lobbies for more NN to keep the competition out.
NN kept the telco networks as they are now.
Why support the laws and monopolies that allow the same brands to keep network competition out?
More NN, the same telco thiefdom get to keep their networks. That one near monopoly network in your area.
Let the competition in and enjoy new network products.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[UnknowingFool]

Your entire post is a false dichotomy. It asserts that there are only without NN, more networks would exist. Simple facts show that is false. The FCC only put in place NN rules two years ago. So before these rules, many telco networks were created? Or have telco networks been shrinking down over the last decade with or without NN?

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[rahvin112]

Your comment is NOTHING but blatantly false statements. the NN regulations didn't require ANY paperwork and they only covered transport and source discrimination and not only that but they WAIVED even that if your company served less than 100K customers.

Stop lying.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to start a new network?

Have to show the federal government that your service is federally NN compliant.

You do know that net neutral systems are the default and easiest to setup?

For instance if I was developing a new subdivision I could do something like this:

1. Find one central building, near where the utilities come in. Install a gigabit switch with a lot of fiber ports. You probably need a dhcp server, though it can probably point to google's servers for dns resolution.
2. Install a gigabit to 100BT switch in all the basement of the housing units.
3. run 100BT to each housing units utility area, where the customer provided equipment goes. The customer provides a standard router plus a possible gigabit swich.

The central building needs a high capacity link to the internet and a block of IP addresses. No where in any of this is convoluted bullshit to make the network biased towards one company or another.

Being network neutral does not cost more money. It costs less. It just makes sense when your trying to promote your services or a company you like over everyone else..

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[SlaveToTheGrind]

So before these rules, many telco networks were created?

All of them, actually.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[AHuxley]

Hows that NN paper-insulated feeder cable going? The some monopolies existed under NN.
Lets keep NN so the some monopolies can be protected again?
NN did not result to network competition all over the USA.
Keeping NN now will result in network competition? The same competition that worked so well in the past?

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, a Telco being NN is cheaper than one that's not.

In order to prioritize packets (not nN), you either need an extra rule for your router to process deep packet inspection. All of this requires extra processing power

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

And if a company is trying to set up 201 fixed wireless locations in rural areas with an average of 500 users in each small town location currently getting no service, they're screwed under the current regime.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

You do know that net neutral systems are the default and easiest to setup?

They're also the hardest to live with when dealing with things like limited-bandwidth fixed wireless networks in rural areas.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to show the federal government that your service is federally NN compliant.

No, you don't, it's just illegal if you're found to be violating it. There are numerous ISPs (including virtually all of the cellular carriers that zero-rate some traffic and not others) which regularly pay a fine because of it. It's more profitable to break NN and pay the fine, but it's even more profitable to revoke NN and not pay the fine. Theoretically, the FCC could revoke a carrier's access to their part of a the spectrum if they continue to violate it, but that will never happen due to the effect it would have on the economy (sudden loss of coverage in some areas, "too big to fail", etc).

The smaller ISPs, such as they are, almost unanimously agree that keeping NN is important, because as common carriers, it exempts them from liability for their customer's actions. Without the protections that come from Title II, ISPs that can litigate their way out of their customer's illegal activities are at an advantage.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[PopeRatzo]

Keeping NN now will result in network competition? The same competition that worked so well in the past?

It actually did work well in the past. I can remember when there were pages of ISPs to choose from. Now, you're extremely lucky if you have access to two. Net Neutrality has been under attack for well over a decade, eroding the internet.

And there is a point of no return.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[rtb61]

Why the fuck wimp out, your country, your fucking network, grind on the fuckers until they wimp out. The ugly dumb bastard is the most hated troll on the entire internet and I mean globally. Pretty much has become the ultimate internet zero, a vacuum that draws hate and loathing from the entire public spectrum. You can bet they will stab him in the back because basically the scummy git's presence in anything is a massive negative, you could not employ, contract with or in any way associate with them, without major negative connotations. The other FCC commissioners are pushing back because they do not want to be sullied by associating with the dick. It is all rather hilarious because the more they push, logarithmically, the greater and more aggressively the push back, the more it is bringing together greater and greater opposition to the establishment. Honestly, they want to keep control and they would have to establish martial law, pretty much a couple of months ago, try it now and it will blow up in their face so bad (Trump in his arrogance driven ignorance is the gift they keeps on giving). Trying to achieve total censorship of the US internet via the abolition of net neutrality, is a really dumb thing to try, a desperate move by the truly panicky, really, really, fearful of being prosecuted for all their crimes, the assets confiscated and spending the rest of their lives in prison.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a network is NN by default doesn't mean you can't throttle ALL videos to ensure quality of service.

Throttling all videos isNet neutral, as long as the isp doesn't treat their own content differently.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

That consolidation happened years before anyone ever coined the term net neutrality.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[PopeRatzo]

That consolidation happened years before anyone ever coined the term net neutrality.

Well, of course you numpty. There was no need for the term "Net Neutrality" until what had been the status quo was under attack from telecoms.

But the concept of "net neutrality" goes back to before there was even an internet. Since you seem to be uninformed on this issue, let me give you some information, with citations you can follow if you want to learn more about this matter in-depth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–_early_2000s

I will expect you to read this before replying. Go on, I'm waiting.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Darinbob]

Not true. No one ever had to prove their were net neutral. Instead the FCC (in the past) assumes they are until complaints arrive.

If the hypothetical requirement to prove you are net neutral before you can start a new network were true, then why is it that the largest companies are the ones who lobbied and paid to remove net neutrality while the small players are mostly all for net neutrality? If government requirements are burdensome, then those most burdened would have been the smallest players, whereas someone like Comcast wouldn't be slowed down at all by this.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Darinbob]

Unfortunately they were also screwed under the old scheme because the big networking companies have gone and bought off state legislatures to outlaw competition.

Anyone who thinks that the big cable companies can be trusted has not been paying attention to the news.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

What if they don't want to throttle all videos? What if they only want to dial down cat videos on YouTube and pron while making sure that the local community college's distance learning program's streaming video content gets top priority for users on their network? That's exactly the sorts of decisions that small network providers want to be able to make, and can't.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

No. We're talking about areas where the handful of largest carriers have NO interest in spending money to set up shop. They come right out and say they won't ever provide services in those areas. This is the situation across vast swathes of the country's terrain. New technologies are shaping up to make it possible for small businesses to serve the people who live in, for example, a struggling rural town in Kentucky that Comcast and Verizon swear they will never even visit. Those small businesses need to have the ability to shape traffic as they see fit to serve their customers, especially low-income customers.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, this is not accurate. The FCC put in the title-ii as a result of 2014 supreme case that overturned key parts of a 2010 bill that was created due to a supreme court case that invalidate parts of a 1996 bill that amended a 1934 bill.

Basically, net neutrality existed before but was not enforceable but no one really knew if that was the case. With the repeal, you move into a framework where NN is known to be unenforceable.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Darinbob]

Even if they have no plans to offer service in some regions, they still don't want anyone else doing so either. Some state legislatures have forbidden municipal broadband at the request of giant telecoms.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Plus1Entropy]

If what you are saying is true, then please explain why major ISPs are in favor of eliminating NN?

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[sjames]

But they need not do it by creating fast lanes and slow lanes. They need not do anything like deep packet inspection. Simple fair queuing will take care of it.

In other words, throttling to contracted bandwidth can be done in a neutral manner just fine.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know they don't want to do it out of their goodness, they are either paid or forced. However, most residents don't give a crap about learning videos from local colleges. What they care about is cat videos, porn and Netflix. But ISP has to allocate part of their pipe to the learning traffic, so they will ask others to pay for their use of video traffic. Once majority of residents subscribe to the extra bundle, because you can't live with learning videos only, the ISP will realise how profitable this is and will start splitting up the connection in to bundles of all kinds, as there is nothing stopping them from doing that.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Should the community college have to pay for fast-lane access? How is a small network provider going to have the resources to make this call? Is a content provider going to cut fast-lane deals with each small network provider out there?

Don't be disingenuous. Dismantling NN isn't for the small network providers and doesn't benefit them. It's for the big ones who can afford to discriminate.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

In other words, throttling to contracted bandwidth can be done in a neutral manner just fine.

That's the problem. If you're neutral about it, then 95% of your bandwidth goes towards providing services for two or three huge corporate media companies - a recipe that an ISP offering the benefits of distance learning, telework, security systems and other uses may have a real need to manage "unfairly." There's nothing wrong with tamping down somebody's overnight TiVo "suggested viewing" download they didn't even ask for while someone else's physics class video gets priority.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

Should the community college have to pay for fast-lane access?

Who said that? You did.

Dismantling NN isn't for the small network providers and doesn't benefit them. It's for the big ones who can afford to discriminate.

What? It's the handful of huge companies who WANT the current NN framework because they can handle the compliance impact while smaller businesses competing in the fringes where people who desperately need higher speed service cannot. Shilling for Obama's edict is you working for Comcast and Verizon.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[fustakrakich]

Wrong again! The small company can't open up shop because the big company has an exclusive statewide franchise.

And another point further down:
If you're neutral about it, then 95% of your bandwidth goes towards providing services for two or three huge corporate media companies

Wrong again again! All your bandwidth goes to whatever your customers are downloading. Unless of course you are prioritizing BigCo traffic in violation of what would be a neutral network.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they only want to dial down cat videos on YouTube and pron

[*sigh*] I know I'm throwing pearls to the swine here, so be it:

They should not be allowed to unless the market is truly open, but the exclusive contracts that the state puts in place preclude that. They can still sell different levels of total bandwidth, and offer more to the community college at the appropriate price.

You serve your merchant class masters well, young padawan

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[dryeo]

WTF? There's no reason for an ISP to censor traffic. I'm on a rural wireless plan, in a country with net neutrality and much less populated then yours. It's really simple, I pay for so many GBs, 250 in my case and whether I use it all up at Netflix or streaming a video of a bird feeder or downloading Linux ISO files is none of my ISP's business. What is their business is if I use more then my allocation.
That's all that is needed, sell packages of X GB rather then advertising unlimited when you can't deliver unlimited.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[fustakrakich]

What's this "compliance" crap you're talking about? The ISP is supposed to sell bandwidth, not tell you which channel you can watch. And in the present day closed markets of exclusivity we need laws that prohibit any prioritization of specific traffic. The ISP should be seen and regulated as a public utility, at least until the market can be pried open where anybody can put up a server without violating some monopolistic ISP's TOS

As much as you hate the idea, we can use the government as our voice when we have no real economic clout.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Help! Help! I'm being downmodded by the same anti-net neutrality bots that are clogging up the FCC site!

Man o man! Idiocracy is much closer than it appears! In fact it's already here and we still haven't reached bottom!

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[ScentCone]

Nice straw man argument there. You win! You totally won the debate that nobody is having. Way to go.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[UnknowingFool]

So all of them were created before NN rules were in place. That sorta destroys his argument doesn't it?

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[sjames]

Only if the customers freely choose to request that traffic. If, instead they choose distance learning, telework, security systems and other uses, that's what they will get. It isn't the ISPs call, it's the paying customers'.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[sjames]

Except it isn't at all a strawman. It's just devastating to your argument. The only reason an ISP might have to limit customer A's video download in order to provide customer B's physics video is if they deliberately sold more bandwidth than they actually had. That is, if they committed fraud.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[UnknowingFool]

I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.

And in the many, many years before NN, hordes and multitudes of new ISPs were created every year? That's against basic facts that the number of ISPs have dwindled down to a handful before NN and continued to do so after NN. Or did NN have really no effect on the creation of ISPs before or after. That's like saying my Axe body cologne drove away supermodels considering I had 0 supermodel girlfriends before I used it and 0 after I used it.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling out a strawman when there is none. That's a special kind of stupid.

You are a 10k gold idiot. ISPs should not throttle my traffic because your precious files need downloading now.

Fuck off, I paid for my bandwidth just as you did, what makes your packets more important than mine? Just because you say so? No, that TiVo show is more important to me than your files you need downloading, How about we throttle your connection? No, again, fuck off with this bullshit.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to sell hot dogs on the street curb you probably have to go to more trouble than that.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Saying that NN further entrenches monopolists by increasing barriers to entry can be true no matter how many other barriers to entry there already are. That seems pretty basic.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[UnknowingFool]

Again false logic: I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect. My Axe body spray is definitely keeping away supermodels. It has no bearing to the fact I don't live or work anywhere near supermodels and can never meet them.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect.

I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking. Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps, but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.

Re:NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[UnknowingFool]

I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking.

Yet you keep posting the same false dichotomy.

Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps,

If that's what you believe an ISP is then that shows your lack of thinking.

but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.

So you admit that NN did nothing for or against ISPs?

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[MercTech]

An ISP sells a connection to the network. You pay for the pipe size you want. The bigger the pipe, the higher the cost.

Selling internet by the gigabit or megabit is a heinous crock of shite as there is no more cost to providing more data once the pipe is put in. Mo money, mo money, mo money, less service. It is not like time sharing on a cell tower; the wire is in, you have the pipeline to the backbone. The only problem is when an ISP oversells their retail connections higher than the pipe to the backbone they are willing to pay for.

An ISP is NOT a content provider. That an ISP wants to throttle anything they don't have a financial stake in is just trying to give the golden goose an enema. Comcast and AT&T mergering their way into a duopoly doesn't mean the the structure of a network has changed. It just means they are trying to leverage every mite and shekel they can.

Moving from considering the internet as a "utility" to considering it as a "commodity" means the big bucks will buy and control it all instead of the level playing field the internet has been since inception.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[MercTech]

Pay attention to who is shilling whom.

Companies that have financial stakes in content providers and are also retail internet service providers want net neutrality kaboshed.

Content providers that make more money from having people access their services want net neutrality to continue.

A level playing field benefits consumers and content providers. Making the internet into a "commodity" only benefits the ISPs that own content providers as they can then block and throttle anyone they don't own.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[MercTech]

There is no such thing as "total bandwidth".
There is "total traffic" for a given period of time.
Bandwidth is akin to the size water pipe you have running to your house. You can only get so much through it before the flow degrades. You rent a pipe from the ISP and it is irrelevant how much you bring through the pipe as it costs the ISP the same for a Megabit or a Gigabit of data coming through.

Re: NN keeps monopoly networks in place

[Anonymous Coward]

There is "total traffic" for a given period of time.

Thank you for defining total bandwidth! And yes, what you pay should be based on the diameter of the pipe going to your house, nothing else.

They are trying hard

[speedlaw]

Heard another Commissioner discuss how giving the FTC authority was better than the FCC. Lying bastards. Destruction of the net is both their priority and the worst thing that could happen. Oh, Trump voters ... people who may have had to rely on the WWW for your deplorable opinions...does this one bother you ?

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

>> Oh, Trump voters ......does this one bother you ?

Yes but not half as much as a Hillary government would have.

Re:They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are an idiot.

Re:They are trying hard

[Known Nutter]

Pretty much anything... just not Hillary. Drain the swamp? Fuck it, don't care anymore. Tax breaks for the middle class... fuck it, just no Hillary. Child molesters in Congress... fuck it, as long as it ain't Hillary. Emails!!! Grab 'em by the pussy! WW3? Who cares... just not Hillary.

Re:They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it's not like the last Democratic President gave a shit about Net Neutrality.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

...said the gutless wuss hiding behind AC

Re:They are trying hard

[Darinbob]

The reason they want to give FTC authority is precisely because the FTC has no teeth. The entire point of this is because Steve Bannon and other anti-government types managed to get Trump to approve their anti-government wishlist for political appointees. We've got an education secretary that doesn't believe in public schools, a secretary of state that has laid off enough diplomats that we have no more diplomatic power, a secretary of the treasury who wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and other safeguards added after the last financial crisis, and so forth. It is no wonder that the chair of the FCC is intent at shredding regulations.

Whether this is to get a big under-the-table bonus from the giant corporations, or because they're genuinely intent on destroying government in order to "rebuild" it, they are most certainly not acting in the best interests of the citizens.

Re:They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

...said the gutless wuss hiding behind AC

Different AC here. Just because you believe that's true of ACs doesn't make it a fact. It's possible that someone - <gasp> - might have different beliefs to you, and different motivations.

Equally, just because I also think you're an idiot it doesn't necessarily mean you are.

Anyway, I wish you well.

Re:They are trying hard

[cats-paw]

Then your view of reality is severely distorted.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

I don;t mind that someone has different opinions, actually I welcome the debate. What I find amusing is someone pretending to be a big man and sniping personal attacks, but actually not having enough balls to even use their actual username.

Re:They are trying hard

[serviscope_minor]

Yes but not half as much as a Hillary government would have.

Well, indeed, but there's nothing Trump could do that would make you dislike him.

Arpaio was conviced for violating the actual constitution and Trump pardoned him.

I look forward to rationalizing how forcing consitutional violations to go unpunished is good for America and good for the constitution.

Expected response: [clutches pearls Oh... but Hillary!

Re:They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to rationalizing how forcing consitutional violations to go unpunished is good for America and good for the constitution.

See, here is your mistake: you consider "good for America" and "good for the constitution" equivalents. But the constitution is bad for America. Maybe not for your idea of America but then you are likely lacking the cash to be worth representing.

Re: They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowflake.

Re:They are trying hard

[Anonymous Coward]

so no response to the actual points made then?

Re:They are trying hard

[djfunkisdead]

Pretty sure that Ajit Pai has been on the FCC Board for a number of years prior to Trump or Bannon even being around. Also slightly remember his very vocal disagreements when the FCC board was passing this (in similar along-party-lines fashion) 2 years ago. But yeah, since no one paid attention back then because "our side won, nah nah nah na boo boo"...lets get all conspiratorial so that people may believe we know what we're talking about.

Re:They are trying hard

[MercTech]

"Arpaio was conviced for violating the actual constitution and Trump pardoned him."

Not even close. Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court for not following a judge's instructions. That's a far cry from violating the constitution.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

>> Arpaio was conviced for violating the actual constitution

No he wasn't. Get a fucking clue.

Re:They are trying hard

[serviscope_minor]

No he wasn't. Get a fucking clue.

Yes he was you constitution hating apologist.

The court told him to stop his unconstitutional acts, he continued thme anyway and for it was convicted of contempt of court.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

Please show me exactly what part of the constitution says cops shouldn't uphold the law whenever that happens to involve illegal immigrants?
"illegal" clearly means something like "whatever I happen to feel is right" to you nonsensical snowflake liberals.

Re:They are trying hard

[serviscope_minor]

Please show me exactly what part of the constitution says cops shouldn't uphold the law whenever that happens to involve illegal immigrants?

Why should I do that? That doesn't have anything to do with the case at hand.

Look it's just easier if you admit that you hate the constitution, and think brown people don't deserve it's protections.

Re:They are trying hard

[JustNiz]

you're a moron.

Right.

[AlanObject]

Telecom carriers that spend obscene amounts of cash on lobbyists and PACs to help disabled people and the elderly. That's all they want. Really.

Sounds. legit.

Re:Right.

[chromaexcursion]

ROFL
too bad I used my mod points today.
I'd mod you up for funny.

Wait, that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the guy, but this is probably true.
Allowing companies to regulate traffic tightly (via traffic shaping and other means), will create a hell for general consumers but will also allow the companies to create and guarantee (with a higher confidence) that specific bandwidths will be available for whatever. This includes emergency, government, and other medical purposes. Right now, unintentional (and intentional) saturation makes every network a pit of assumed failure. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Wait, that makes sense

[AHuxley]

Re 'specific bandwidths will be available for whatever"
The paper-insulated feeder cable is always NN compliant.
Dont let other companies build new networks. They will do bad things with no NN.

Re:Wait, that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

> The paper-insulated feeder cable is always NN compliant.

You can't force reliability upstream with any regulatory pressure, given the fragility and economics of the existing infrastructure.
This is why we don't have differences in reliability between networks of equivalent size now. Being dishonest about the situation, isn't compelling.

Re: Wait, that makes sense

[orlanz]

The ISPs have always had this ability and do so under NN too. Under NN, they arenâ(TM)t allowed to slow down ER1s medical data over ER2s medical data. They can still prioritize medical data, VoIP, VOD, etc over something like webpages, ftp, bittorent, telnet, etc. NN isnâ(TM)t against QoS.

Re: Wait, that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Disbanding NN will not solve that problem. It could be solved with NN in place if they really wanted to. This is just a smoke screen. Nothing more.

And it will put Killary in Jail! LOCK HER UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!
If you don't support the killing of Net Neutrality you're a socialist fascist Hillary lover who will burn in hell for all eternity!

Re: And it will put Killary in Jail! LOCK HER UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Believe it or not I think I saw that quote verbatim on a Breitbart comment.

Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[TigerPlish]

So how does The People fight this? No one reads /.

No one. Numbers-wise, I mean. /. is not read by enough people to truly spark Fake (or Genuine) Internet Outrage.

How come this isn't running front page on the major Muggle press?

Yeah. What they don' know won't hurt them.

But sure as fuck it'll hurt us.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does [sic] The People fight this?

Whine, cry, and throw a tantrum just like all the lefties do when they don't get their way.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[chromaexcursion]

Actually it has been a front page story on CNN, NSNBC, others.
It doesn't help that hardly anyone actually reads the real news now.
There has been tons of outrage. It's falling on deaf ears.
This is the era of Trump. Public opinion doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter.
It's an agenda.
The only hope is that it will be reversed, as soon as possible.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[MightyMartian]

Thanks Ivan, how's the weather in st Petersburg?

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[El Cubano]

There has been tons of outrage. It's falling on deaf ears.
This is the era of Trump. Public opinion doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter.
It's an agenda.

I agree. It is eerily reminiscent of the era of Obama. I remember things like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "the average American family will save $2500 per year in healthcare costs" and "you will have more and better choices for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act" and "we will cover more people with better coverage and it will cost less".

It turns out that every single one of those things was false, that millions of Americans were outraged at the effort to have government take over healthcare and that outrage fell on deaf ears. Remember the legislative chicanery to get the ACA rammed through the Senate before Senator Ted Kennedy's replacement, Republican Scott Brown, could be seated?

Sheesh. And liberals are upset when the Republicans do things along party lines without Democratic support.

The only hope is that it will be reversed, as soon as possible.

The same can be said of the Affordable Care Act, which is decidedly unaffordable for practically every American it affects.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for all of us, doing anything about the constant abuses by the Oligarchy requires the populace to band together and stand up for themselves. It requires the populace giving up some of their comforts for a time. It requires more than this, but that's already too much for most of the population to deal with. So we will continue to take it right up the ass, and pretend like voting next time around will solve things. Anything more than the equivalent of a facebook like is too much to ask.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it sure did help the insurance industry.
Hooray for big corporate subsidies disguised as altruistic horseshit!!!!
AmIRight?!?!

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[duke_cheetah2003]

So how does The People fight this? No one reads /.
No one. Numbers-wise, I mean. /. is not read by enough people to truly spark Fake (or Genuine) Internet Outrage.
How come this isn't running front page on the major Muggle press?
Yeah. What they don' know won't hurt them.
But sure as fuck it'll hurt us.

There has been a ton of press coverage of this. The people who aren't listening is the FCC. Everyone else is! And there's a lot of loud bitching from every corner (except the ISPs of course.) There's a ton of noise that doing this is Bad. But as I said, FCC isn't listening. They just don't give a flying f about The People.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[duke_cheetah2003]

It turns out that every single one of those things was false, that millions of Americans were outraged at the effort to have government take over healthcare and that outrage fell on deaf ears. Remember the legislative chicanery to get the ACA rammed through the Senate before Senator Ted Kennedy's replacement, Republican Scott Brown, could be seated?

Sheesh. And liberals are upset when the Republicans do things along party lines without Democratic support.

All I gotta say is the old proverb: Two wrong do not make a right.

We're not each others enemies, but goddamn it sure feels like the 'right' is at war with the 'left.' This is the kind of tit-for-tat thinking you expect of two sovereign powers that don't like each other.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice fantasy world you've got there.
I did keep my doctor, no lie there.
No one promised "the average American family will save $2500 per year in healthcare costs".
We did will have better choices for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act: No scammy bullshit plans that cost but don't cover anything. That is until Trump started destabilizing the markets. just to "prove" how broken they are.

And holy SHIT what projection! Rammed down our throats? There were months of hearings! PUBLIC fucking hearings. republicans were courted, and publicly agonized and bargained and got concessions only to vote all against it. Rammed down our throats? That's the the GOP method we Just Fucking Witnessed! No public hearings no input AT ALL from the opposition. Are you blind? a liar? a classic case of projection? if months of hearings are what you call "Rammed down our throats" than what the fuck do you call this unpopular, disastrous, literally-cooked-up-in-a-back-room, tax bill? that's the definition of Rammed down our throats. not months of public hearings.

fucking republicans its all lies all the time!

Where are those "Death Panels" anyway? another fucking lie.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[chromaexcursion]

Every civilized country on earth has national health care.
Except the US.
The US ranks below Costa Rica in health care.
We're about to fall below Cuba.

your other claims are specious.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Darinbob]

The Muggle Press misrepresents a lot of things here. They talk about ISPs being the issue, because that's easier for the audience to understand and relate to. In reality the problem is in the guts of the internet, where the big players control not only the internet but content as well. Sure, if your ISP happens to be Comcast, then yes, Comcast is trying to screw over the internet competition. But if your ISP is a local cable company, or a rural broadband company, they are going to be wanting net neutrality for basic business reasons (not pissing off their customers).

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[mishehu]

The ACA was passed with bipartisan support. Your comparison is irrelevant.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[LoneTech]

It doesn't help much if major venues host his story without addressing its veracity. For instance, this bit about paid priority for those who need it. The key words are "paid" and "need"; these are markets not currently being singled out for this particular extortion, because of the law he intends to repeal. Of course this is hugely unfair as the telecom companies aren't allowed to perform the same type of extortion the pharmacological ones can.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between "health care" and "health outcomes", which is what is generally getting measured.

It's really freaking hard to have your health care maintain the upper hand when your patients are all obese and maintain a study diet of french fries, potato chips and cookies.

The US absolutely has the best non-localized health care system in the world. If you get some crazy weird-ass disease you want to be in the States to get it treated. It's the culture that's absolutely rotten. Don't forget the government getting their fingers into it with the war on fats, which only served to ramp up the diabetes - it's just a great idea to keep trusting that train for everything.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bipartisan support? Not a single Republican voted for it. Just what is your definition of bipartisan support?

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

I kept my doctor. I see no death panels. The issue was debated ad-nausium. I would have liked to see the ACA go much further, but the GOP wasn't open to anything that might cut the insurance companies out of the picture, or even weaken their position.

Meanwhile, the GOP has wasted many MONTHS since Trump came into office trying to come up with something better and have failed time after time. You can't blame the Dems, the Rs control House, Senate, and the Oval office. The only 'solutions' they could come up with were so vile that even parts of the GOP couldn't hold their noses hard enough to pass it.

Now they're trying so hard to pull a fast one with the tax bill they totally forgot to renew the Patriot (traitor) act.

But look out! Something truly despicable must be brewing in D.C. since Trump needlessly dumped a 55 gallon drum of gasoline on the dumpster fire that is Israeli-Palestinian relations as a diversion.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee!

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[DNS-and-BIND]

The right is conservative. They don't change much, if at all. They're the same people they were decades ago, pretty much. The left, on the other hand, is just going further and further left, and anyone to the right of Mao Zedong looks like a Nazi to them. In 1973, all six major US class segments were centrist. Over the next 35 years, five of the segments moved slightly to the right, but "Intellectual Upper Class" moved far out to the left.

The left sees people as a metallurgist sees iron ore. To them, people in the way of their vision are impurities to be removed before forging their utopia. Clay to be molded. Human dust to be brushed around.

Most leftists don't call people that oppose them the enemy. But the people doing it are overwhelmingly leftists.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[DNS-and-BIND]

It has been well-known that the USA is not a civilized country since the reign of Bu$hitler the Tyrant. Well on over 15 years now. So why this "except the US" statement, when the US long ago fell out of the ranks of civilized nations? It's a third world shithole and has been for quite some time. I'm kind of puzzled.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[pastafazou]

So if it's such a shithole, why are people still trying to sneak in, and why are people going through the immigration process to get in?

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[pastafazou]

Bipartisan as in both Senate Dems and House Dems?

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[pastafazou]

death panels: https://www.slideshare.net/aus...

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

AKA the "It didn't happen to me so it happened to no one" defense.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain why many Republican big names have pointed out that Reagan and Nixon would not fit into today's Republican party? Is that because "conservatives don't change"? Dimwit.

Just one example:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/11/jeb-bush-reagan-wouldnt-fit-in-todays-gop/

Jeb Bush: Reagan wouldn't fit in today's GOP

(CNN) – One of the GOP's leading voices said Monday that former President Ronald Reagan, considered an idol among Republican politicians, would struggle to mesh with today's hyper-partisan attitude among some elected officials.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, speaking to editors at Bloomberg, also said his father, former President George H.W. Bush, would have trouble fitting in with today's Republican Party.

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad – they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party – and I don't – as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, according to the website Buzzfeed.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good citation of a conservative think tank. Kudos! I would give you an A-.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ramming Speed!

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[t0rkm3]

I couldn't keep my doctor, my health care costs doubled for less care...

I came from a gold plated open affordable plan to some crazy ass horseshit with a minimum 5K deductible for twice the price.

Anecdotes are not data.

There have been many studies on the matter, and the data points the fact that health care costs are rising at a rate that does not seem to be slowing. So, buckle up buttercup.

Examples are readily available by simply googling "Have health care costs risen or fallen under ACA?". I will leave one example here:

In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost a total of $12,680, with employees footing $3,354 of the bill, according to Kaiser data. By 2016, the cost of the average employer family plan was up to $18,142 for the year, with workers picking up $5,277 of the tab.

The ostensible reason for adopting ACA was to insure more people. As I remember it the following provisions were included:

1. No consideration for pre-existing conditions. I don't understand how anyone with any idea about economics and govt distributed healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) thought this would decrease or stabilize the cost of healthcare.

2. The government plans will increase to better approach the private plans so that there will be less disparity in the quality of care. Again, pretty much a double incentive to decrease the care provided to private customers (the bar was reset to the Medicaid level of care) but a necessary increase in availability to slightly conceal the actual effect. (Care mediation)

3. Coverage will not be dependent on citizenship or legal immigration status. Again... Talking about loading the boat with negative financial burdens and claiming that there would be no price pressure.

There have long been arguments on Slashdot that other countries have universal healthcare and are supporting it. However, most of those examples have not had the sustained level of low skill immigration that the US has enjoyed over the last 40 years. Those that are catching up are starting to have to re-evaluate and/or change the messaging on their healthcare plans (Sweden, Germany, and UK NHS in particular). In the US, the people in favor of universal care should really stop arguing about money. If they believe that it is a right, then they should be speaking about the other rights that they choose to abrogate in favor of that right and establishing the moral imperative for doing so. Anything else is a distraction.

The truth of the matter is simply economic. If we want to provide universal anything as a social benefit, then we have to limit the growth of the low skill population. Otherwise the number of net recipients vs net contributors increases, at the same time that our aging population is stepping out of the workforce (Hello Boomers!) and we continue the death spiral of comparative quality of life in the US. [For those that argue that immigration into the US indicates that the US is still "Awesome!" should probably consider adding "Compared to what?" to their analysis. The proposition should also consider analyzing the quality of the immigrant over time. This might show that the skill level of the average immigrant is falling while quantity remains steady or increases. This could indicate that the quality of life disparity between nations is narrowing.]

The US is a third world country with the idea that it is still a first world nation. What we are now going through is a soft revolution where the mobile have-nots are appropriating the property of the landed gentry clinging to the cobwebs of past generations. The new robber barons are stroking our egos, while promoting the ingress of even more cheap labor.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiiight, because nobody was denied needed care before.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the graph Charles Murray has provided again. Think about it. The problem is that the Right is being barraged with the idea that all liberals are way off the edge with the tiny percentage shown on that graph. Listen to all sides, talk to real people, and you will see that is not the case.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

And in answer to your concerns, the GOP did fuck all. There are plenty of possibilities to improve the situation, but the GOP simply isn't open to those answers even though they work at least better than our system literally everywhere they have been implemented and at half the cost. It was GOP naysaying that kept the ACA from including those solutions in the first place. The situation isn't going to improve until the GOP either pull their heads out of their asses or get voted out. I'm fine with either.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

Your link is an ink blot. Some see a clown, some see a death panel. No answer is particularly right or wrong.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an economic problem, and unfortunately you are severely misguided.

The vast majority of people had healthcare, the only reason costs went up is because the insurance companies could do it. They are still making record profits and they will disqualify everyone they can to keep their record profits. Universal health care is practically the only solution: if you starve out the insurance companies, they will be forced to lower their prices to compete with the government offering. Market forces in action.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not there are places even worse then USA.

Re: Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Aka it happen to me, so it happens to everyone defense"

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[t0rkm3]

Market forces by starving out the insurance companies using a taxpayer backed bucket of money?

Nope.

They will look at the future of competition in the space and decide to either sell services to the government (look at Booz Allen, Delloitte) or go up market and sell insurance for exceptional services. It will not lower the insurance costs. The only way to do that is for some company to demonstrate that profit is possible while providing the same service at lower price. This threatens their revenue stream while demonstrating that it is possible for them to attain that same result. A government backed agency does nothing of the sort.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[t0rkm3]

Totally agreed.

The citizens of the US had no true advocate in this fight. It's difficult to say that we do today.

I'm not totally anarcho-capitalist, but I do think heading that direction in this argument is probably closer to the solution. Some of the practical examples that guide me that direction are student loans and education costs, govt encouraged home loans and home price inflation, and the evolution of the current health care market.

Counter examples, or examples of businesses that we should look at Surgery Centers of Oklahoma, and a lot of the urgent care centers or small doctor offices that are starting to move toward cash payments and not accepting insurance.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[duke_cheetah2003]

The left sees people as a metallurgist sees iron ore. To them, people in the way of their vision are impurities to be removed before forging their utopia.

That's not how I see people. I'm definitely mostly liberal and progressive. I don't see the right as enemies or lumps of iron ore. I just see them as uneducated stupidity. There's nothing inherently wrong with being uneducated and stupid. But when the right imposes it's stupid upon me, I get a little annoyed. I don't like being told what I can and cannot do. The right seems to like to do that. Left seems to say, let people do what they want, leave people alone. So it's hard for me to sympathize with the right. All I see is stupid uneducated people who want to force their world view and moral compass upon me.

The other thing that annoys me about the right is their greed and lack of compassion. It's always the right who gets in the way of any social welfare to help people less fortunate. It's them who complain their tax dollars are being wasted on undeserving people who them just see as lazy, instead of maybe, disabled, or in need of a hand up? I have a serious problem relating to people who show a complete lack of compassion and willingness to chip in to help their society be better.

Lastly, is the rights apparent 'fear' of government. A lot of my co-workers are very much right, and I often hear them tell me of fear of government. They seem to think anything the government touches turns to shit. They don't trust government. They seem to just want it to go away entirely. I don't see it like that. Government is necessary, and our government in particular should not be feared. The US government is made up of US citizens, duh? Why would I fear my fellow citizens? And I can point to boatloads of good our government has done. Were mistakes made? Of course they were. Nothing is perfect, but I'm still not crying out for it to be torn down, nor do I fear it.

So there, a view of the right from the left. Enjoy.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

I kept my doctor. I see no death panels.

You are joking. Insurance companies go through unseemly effort to deny care. They have adapted the practice of demanding pre-aproval for just about anything that may cost money, but not publishing (in advance) which treatments need pre-aproval and which do not. The effect is to delay care. And delaying care in a situatoin in which you pay for coverage per unit of covered time, is equivalent to denying care.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

They are not the government death panels the GOP squawked about and they do not exist because of Obama. You might say they are a pre-existing condition...

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[lsatenstein]

There has been tons of outrage. It's falling on deaf ears.

This is the era of Trump. Public opinion doesn't matter. Truth doesn't matter.

It's an agenda.

I agree. It is eerily reminiscent of the era of Obama. I remember things like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and "the average American family will save $2500 per year in healthcare costs" and "you will have more and better choices for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act" and "we will cover more people with better coverage and it will cost less".

It turns out that every single one of those things was false, that millions of Americans were outraged at the effort to have government take over healthcare and that outrage fell on deaf ears. Remember the legislative chicanery to get the ACA rammed through the Senate before Senator Ted Kennedy's replacement, Republican Scott Brown, could be seated?

Sheesh. And liberals are upset when the Republicans do things along party lines without Democratic support.

The only hope is that it will be reversed, as soon as possible.

The same can be said of the Affordable Care Act, which is decidedly unaffordable for practically every American it affects.

Obama was hoping that the Americans would look to Canada and how our health care system does what he is quoted as saying.

We have some dual citizen families returning to Canada. Vis, Husband is American, wife Canadian. After 6 months of employment, the family is covered for medicare. No discussion about pre-existing conditions or limits to coverage.

Her 4 kids will be going to McGill University for around $3000/kid. University here is 3 years for a bachelor degree as first year is covered in a college that is post high school-pre-university. Want to be a trades person, or trades professional, policeman, you need that first year equivalent of University.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[MercTech]

And the decline in U.S. Health Care started when the Democratic agenda took government regulation of health care away from the Surgeon General and gave it to the bureaucrats of the HEW Department.
Republican Agenda... we are spending too much on health care. We need a more efficient system, preferably a private one instead of bureaucratic.
Democratic agenda... change health care so it provides less service and costs more from the public coffers. The latest debacle is trying to convince people that insurance equals service. If that were true, my car insurance would change my oil and gas up my car.

The health care system needs help and a lot of work. A sinecure for insurance companies is not the answer to overpriced and low availability of health care.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[MercTech]

No one denies health care.
You just delay treatment and keep them coming back until they die or give up.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[redlemming]

Every civilized country on earth has national health care.
Except the US.

If by "national health care" you mean single payer, hence the government runs the health care system, that's a myth.

Both Switzerland and Holland do not have such a system. They don't have unrestricted capitalism or a massively unethical legal profession either, and they aren't plagued with deeply entrenched corruption.

Both these other systems work quite well, with good stats and costs on par with other Western European nations (9-11% of GDP - well below the USA at over 17% of GDP).

National health care should not be the goal: the systems currently run by the US government (VA and MediCare) don't work particularly well. Fixing the problems with entrenched corruption and unethical practice of law is a better approach, otherwise you just end up with a very expensive national health care system that doesn't work well because you haven't cured the underlying diseases in the legal and political system.

Giving people a direct vote on health care issues (similar to the Swiss system) would also make sense.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

If you look at the price of the surgery centers, they are certainly better, but they are still in the stratosphere. A lot of people simply can't afford them. Urgent care really can't do more than a family doctor. If it's anything really URGENT, they tell you to go to the ER, even though the ER will happily keep you waiting another 6 hours.

The ACA curbed some of the worst insurance company practices and mad it possible for former medical pariahs to get coverage, but the deductibles are killing some people still and the complexity of the billing should be a criminal offense.

Really, our choice is socialized medicine like most of the free world or let people die like the 3rd world.

Non-emergency medicine could work in an anarcho-capitalist system, but half measures wouldn't do it. We'd have to scrap prescription and scheduling laws, drug exclusivity, and a big pile of licensing to have any hope of market forces actually making healthcare affordable to all. That seems even less achievable than fully socialized medicine from a political viewpoint in the U.S.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

They exist because insurance companies are forced to pay for care that most people don't need but still are forced to pay for. So they cannot afford to provide the care that people do need and do pay for. When the law restricts insurance companies in what they can charge and puts mandates on what care they must provide, the insurance companies cannot physically provide everything implied in the contracts they write. So they get into the position where they are forced to look for way to cut care. And since this situation is created by the law, it is the result of government actions. The fact it don't exist in the shape of the exact shape of the allegory used in a political debate does not detract from the fact that the practice has taken place.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

You apparently don't remember pre-ACA insurance. It included such gems as rescission a process where they decide after an expensive medical event that your coverage was terminated the day before. Or somehow an expensive medication was declared to be "experimental" for (non)-coverage purposes.

You may also have missed the way the industry as a whole colluded to insist that uninsured patients get charged far more than insured patients.That continues today.

Finally, health insurers are making record profits this year.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

You apparently don't remember pre-ACA insurance.

Don't be daft.

It included such gems as rescission a process where they decide after an expensive medical event that your coverage was terminated the day before. Or somehow an expensive medication was declared to be "experimental" for (non)-coverage purposes.

Those were (a) rare cases, (b) something you could litigate in court. Because of ACA, you can't take insurance companies to court nearly as readily.

Finally, health insurers are making record profits this year.

So? ACA caps their profits at 20% of revenue. If their operating profits are growing that just means that their expenses are growing, too. Otherwise, they would not be able to collect higher premiums (and they have been). If their investments are growing, however, it has nothing to do with how they operate (stock market had quite a run, so there is that).

You may also have missed the way the industry as a whole colluded to insist that uninsured patients get charged far more than insured patients.That continues today.

That's actually silly. They collectively bargained to pay less, but they didn't pay less than the providers were willing to accept. Of course, the patients with no collectie bargaining power could not get deals as good. Calling this a collusion is a gross mischaracterization.

Nothing you have said changes the fact that there were additional requirements imposed on the insurance companies which squized them to act as gatekeepers to even the most basic care. This is consistent with "death panels" characterization (if you allow for a slight poetic license). If you try arguing purely on the semantics side, it will just be an indication that you deliberately misunderstand the point.

Take a hard look at yourself. You think you are on the side of the angels and that kind of thinking is what prevents people from critically examining their own thinking. It is this thinking that you are the "good guys" that makes you fall to corruption harder when you do fall.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

There was nothing rare about rescission. It was common enough that they had software specifically to flag likely expensive patients for dpecial review. They specifically created their applications to make sure they would always have the proverbial 6 lines written by an honest man.

Record profits means only a fool would take their crying about ruinous regulations seriously. They can't be all that ruinous if they're prospering so well.

Now, keep in mind, I would have preferred to cut insurance out of the picture entirely since that approach results in no billing headaches, no confusion, true universal coverage, and it puts such absurdities as $8 aspirins and $130 canvas slings in the legislature's crosshairs.

Note, it wasn't the Democrats who opposed cutting the insurance companies out. Consider how closely Obamacare resembles Romneycare.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

Record profits means only a fool would take their crying about ruinous regulations seriously.

No, it doesn't. If the profits come from investment income rather than operating income, then regulation is forcing them to cut down costs whether you like or not. They just happen to have an incidental windfall from the rising stock market. The moment it turns south, the investment income will drop to zero or even negative (depending on how good their hedging and risk management is). The law already prohibits them from paying out less than 80% of the money they take in. So rising values of those 20% would actually indicate that the 80% part is also growing.

They can't be all that ruinous if they're prospering so well.

No one said they were ruinous. Only that the behavior which the current system demands of them makes them de facto rationing mills. It doesn't do it by ruining them. It does it by restructuring their incentives.

Now, keep in mind, I would have preferred to cut insurance out of the picture entirely since that approach results in no billing headaches, no confusion, true universal coverage,

I was with you right up until "universal coverage". The best quality and the cheapest healthcare I got was when I paid cash. Yes, I end up paying less for health care when I don't use insurance (even though I elected to have it). And when I pay on the spot (without insurance) I get immediate care and no BS from the doctors. The whole idea of single payer is frankly disgusting. It's not just unworkable or unmanageable. It's disgusting. I've dealt with systems which were single-payer and forcing a working system into a single-payer system is tantamount to destroying it. I only wish there was a hell for the ACA authors to go to. Too bad there isn't.

Consider how closely Obamacare resembles Romneycare.

Why should I care? I mean, at all? I don't live in MA. And there are many reasons (besides its health insurance problems) why I wouldn't want to.

I don't know why you are still arguing. Obamacare fails on anecdotal evidence. Obamacare fails on moral basis (yes, it's immoral to destroy a healthcare system for 60% of the population to improve for 10%). Obamacare fails on statistical basis (2 years after its implementation life expectancy stopped increasing even after adjustment for aging population). I could go on, but I don't know on what basis it does succeed other than forcing more people to buy insurance and calling "providing insurance for more people" while not increasing the number of healthcare providers.

It's not just amoral. It's worse than immoral. It's wicked and evil. It will kill more people than all the wars this country fought combined.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

Oh, and just so I am clear, it is my firm opinion that if no one goes to jail for this travesty of justice called Obamacare, than it will be the miscarriage of justice that this country will be most remembered for. Obamacare is a bigger injustice than slavery was. Having an immoral system (like slavery) because no better system has been devised is only tragic. Having a working system and destroying it deliberately is wicked and repugnant.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

So now any sort of rationing is a death panel? We have always had rationing. We can do it on the basis of wealth (rich get manicures while they wait, poor die of treatable illnesses), need (people who might die go first, boo-boos get fixed at home with a band-aid), or?

You do know that nothing says socialized medicine forbids you from paying cash in a private transaction, right? Even then, you benefit since the private care will consider that you will eventually be treated at no additional cost and so will only pay so much for expedited care.

The U.S. is actually well down the list from the U.K. and Commonwealth countries as far as life expectancy and quality of care is concerned. That was true before Obamacare as well.

BTW, ACA is far from single payer, why do you lump them together?

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

The system wasn't working though. It still isn't working all that well, because ACA didn't go nearly far enough. There are several examples around the world of systems that work better based on objective criteria. We should adopt one of them.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

Reducing costs is no way to increase care. Romney's plan (when he ran for President) was to create a lower tier of doctors for lower tier of care. Some states already allow RN's to act as partial doctors (including writing prescriptions). Introducing a nation system for RN licensing would increase the number of providers. Allowing RN's do the basic care while requiring MD to do specialist care would have been enough to increase the pool of providers. Instead of it they created a system specifically designed to hand out a large amount of money to the insurance companies to keep them afloat after dot com and housing investment losses. They shielded them from lawsuits, but not to short change the lawyers, they didn't shield the doctors (who are now required to buy insurance, giving insurance companies even more business, to get a partial shield from lawsuits). The whole scheme had a sole purpose: allowing the insurance companies to survive despite their poor risk management during dot com boom and subsequent housing bubble. All insurance companies miscalculated the timing on dot com. Some (but not all) misread the housing market. The actual administration of care was the best in the world before the whole system became more about insurance than about care. The cost of care was rising, but it was partially due to more care provided (because more procedures were developed and administered) and partially due to shortage of providers of basic care. But the actual treatment which was available was the best in in the US. We are now losing ground to Germany and (to a lesser extent) Switzerland. The whole thought pattern of "we'll let insurance companies have more business, but they'll have to cover more people" had the obvious drawback: there wasn't enough coverage to cover more people. At the same time reducing the "cost" of care meant reducing earning potential of providers (so there was no incentive to increase the pool of providers). ACA is evil. It's a sin if there ever was such a thing as sin.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

Reducing cost is the first step to increasing care. If the care is unaffordable, it tends to not happen. Other countries with better life expectancy and quality of health care spend HALF what we spend in the U.S.

Other measures that reduce cost (but not provider earnings) include emphasis on generic and well proven drugs rather than the drug of the week, clinical diagnosis rather than a battery of tests, and same proces of medical supplies.

You don't think that might help?

You should also actually look up Romneycare. It's the very ACA like system implemented in Mass. under then governor Romney.

We aren't just losing ground to a couple of countries, we have lost it. According to the WHO, the U.S. is currently in 37th place.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[DNS-and-BIND]

The right seems to like to do that. Left seems to say, let people do what they want, leave people alone.

You joking? The side that invented social justice wants to leave people alone? You're nuts. Did you know that back in the 90's we didn't have SJWs and it wasn't exactly the third reich, right?

Lastly, is the rights apparent 'fear' of government.

You know what killed more people than anything else in the 20th century? Government. Powerful central governments. Apparently when you give them enough power they just go off on their own and ignore the people's interests in favor of their own. And their own interests require that a lot of people die so that they can achieve their goals. Just look at these numbers - when you start using terms like "deka-megamurderer" it's amazingly frightening. People are right to be afraid, and you are the one that is uneducated on the topic. Did you even know the Nationalist Chinese killed more people than Hitler killed Jews? If not, then how are you qualified to even speak on the subject of fear of powerful government?

There's an old conservative maxim: "Keep the old as long as it is good, and take the new as soon as it is better." In the political context, liberals dismiss that maxim. They propose radical changes in public policy, without any caution...often in the face of copious evidence that their proposals have been tried and found harmful!

If one side understands the other better, and by extension probably their arguments better too, and still holds their position...that speaks to the strength of their position. The Left simply does not understand the Right and doesn't care to - much like you say anyone on the Right must be an uneducated deplorable prson. When faced with questions such as "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.

"I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
-- Robin Morgan, influential feminist

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[superwiz]

Reducing cost is the first step to increasing care.

No, that's literally putting the before the horse.

If the care is unaffordable, it tends to not happen.

No, if care is oversupplied it tends to get reduced in price. You are completely misunderstanding cause and effect.

Other countries with better life expectancy and quality of health care spend HALF what we spend in the U.S.

This stupid on so many levels that I don't if I am even talking to a human being. I hope you don't vote.

clinical diagnosis rather than a battery of tests

Don't worry, we do much less testing that is necessary to fully diagnose. So that's dumb.

You should also actually look up Romneycare. It's the very ACA like system implemented in Mass. under then governor Romney.

Why should I care? No one ever says "I wish I lived in MA for better healthcare." ACA is evil. People who support it are people in name only.

According to the WHO, the U.S. is currently in 37th place.

The bogus study in which only 25% of the score was based on the quality of the care? The one issued by the Communists to justify the campaign to destroy heathcare in the US after Hillarycare failed the 90's? In a just world, people who issued it would be treated like terrorists that they were.

We aren't just losing ground to a couple of countries, we have lost it.

Because of people like you. You are a monster. And what makes you worse is that you don't mean to be and so you don't think you are. But it's not your intentions that make you a monster. It's your thinking that your wishful thinking is enough to justify how you should be judged. But it's not. Your stupidity has consequences. And you want to not be subject to those consequences beause you think that you want things to work out well. And you and people like you are condeming the rest of us to hell.

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[t0rkm3]

A reasonable but somewhat specious argument. People in the socialized medical countries die from lack of treatment all the time. So, the question is really, who decides? At this point I have no hope that the politics in this country can be redeemed.

I am also skeptical that a country with the level of variance in culture and needs can be served well by the same federal system.

Vote Balkanization!

Re:Lying Liars Lie, Film at 11.

[sjames]

Don't believe the political hype. The supposed deaths from rationing in socialized medicine are not what you think. They are just cases where fantastically expensive yet futile measures are withheld at end of life in favor of palliative care that allows for a decent last few weeks rather than a truly miserable month. Naturally, for-profit medicine offers the treatment leaving the family feeling obligated to approve it (unless they simply can't, then they get to feel guilty about not being rich and/or heavily insured). In socialized medicine, the doctors make the hard decision that is ultimately better for the patient and family so the family doesn't have to agonize over it.

For example, a couple years ago, there was a much touted "wonder drug" for liver cancer. It cost $60,000/month and a course of treatment was 6 months. The side effects were quite unpleasant. Once the dust settled, it was found to extend life by about 1 month. There were no remissions. So what'll it be, 7 really bad months or 5 good ones and 1 not so good?

You are joking, aren't you?

[ffkom]

If you really believe that the US without NN will see more competition amongst carriers, you are bound for a bad surprise. Quite the opposite is to be expected: For a sizeable part of all customers, who today already have basically not more options than to contract with one locally available carrier to get (at least) the "whole Internet" experience, the number of options will decrease from 1 to zero - because especially where there are not multiple carriers already, there is no reason why the existing carrier should not cripple Internet connectivity to whatever suits him best in order to sell his own "premium" services.
And the number of "new carriers" who get into this business "because there is no more obligation to be network-neutral" will amount to exactly zero.

WTF

[xbytor]

Did he even read the current rules. I would assume so which means he's just telling bald-faced lies.

I want Wheeler back.

editorialize much?

[rogoshen1]

not a fan of killing net neutrality and by extension, Pai, the FCC, Comcast, or Verizon but come the fuck on, it's possible to write a summary without all that editorializing.

I need to make a bill

[Anonymous Coward]

HIGHER SALARIES FOR ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND FOUR MONTHS VACATION FREEDOM ACT

The details of the bill will actually call for the beheading of anyone who votes yes on the bill. I suspect it will still pass by a high majority. As a rider, we can add beheadings for the FCC as well.

Orwell would be proud

[quonset]

If Pai's gibberish isn't the epitome of doublespeak, nothing is.

Re:Orwell would be proud

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. He managed to do tripple-speak.

Guys, don't you see?

[Anonymous Coward]

With motivated reasoning, ANYTHING is possible! If only you leave behind your reasonable sense of reality, why, by golly - you can basically connect anything you want, with anything else, and CALL it reality!

You can never be wrong, if nothing is reasonably incorrect!

Of course, you can't really convince anyone else of anything this way either - but you CAN use the endless wave of what would normally be called 'lies' to control crucial resources that other folks need to live, and for them to act in your interests, even if they disagree with you - and then use more of those 'lies' to tell others that their disagreements are just their own bias showing.

It's a lovely world of lies, now that the 'right' folks are in charge!

Oh, and don't let anyone else convince you that societies that live with these kind of lies tend to disintigrate quickly. That's just reasonable expectations of reality misleading you again.

Artificial Scarcity

[nickmalthus]

Artificial scarcity is the core motivation behind the Network Neutrality repeal. They are about to roll out 5G technologies with 10gbs download speeds which is more bandwidth than most everyone will need. With cable cutters and plunging market prices the telecoms are in a panic and thus they are calling on their inside man to protect their interests. He is looking forward to his future “Pai Day” for his loyal service.

If network prioritization were a true problem then senders and receivers, the customers, should have full control of prioritization using existing Quality of Service (QoS) network features. However by giving telecoms unabated control of prioritization they can distort traffic and resume charging premiums for video and voice.

The FCC chairman has been unequivocally clear in is objectives; increased network investment (read profit) for the ILECs and absolute hands off regulation until there is a complete “market failure” (read unavoidable regulation due to universal outrage over telcom censorship and exorbitant prices).

Finally his talking point about regulatory burden on telcom technology is a joke. It is impossible for telcoms to transfer data beyond the speed of light so the only thing they can do is slow it down or block it. Providing financial incentives to enact artificial scarcity, censorship, and surveillance is the complete opposite of promoting “Free Market” ideologies.

Re:Artificial Scarcity

[ClickOnThis]

They are about to roll out 5G technologies with 10gbs download speeds which is more bandwidth than most everyone will need.

Let's put that one into the time-capsule, along with the apocryphal "640k ought to be enough for anybody."

Re:Artificial Scarcity

[Anonymous Coward]

However by giving telecoms unabated control of prioritization they can distort traffic and resume charging premiums for video and voice.

This is not just about multimedia. The telecoms want to tap into the endless V2X (Vehicle to X) traffic of the future and charge extra for mandatory traffic services that may not use the bandwidth but require very low latency. They want you to pay for gas, electricity and infrastructure data for every km/mile driven.

Re:Artificial Scarcity

[MercTech]

5G?
We are talking about the internet not cellular service. Having a cellular link to the internet is certainly a telecom issue and regulated as a utility. Cellular bandwidth is contracted as a finite resource. Only a very very small fraction of internet traffic impacts with cellular service. The cell companies never bothered to implement 4G so what makes you think they will upgrade to 5G? (In the rest of the world, 4GLTE is 4G lite or 3G+)

The low cutoff for being considered "broadband" is 25 Mbps which was fought tooth and nail by Comcast & AT&T as they are not providing a "broadband" connection to most of their customers even though their rate plans call the wimpier plans "broadband".

It is hard to compare the internet and packet switched radio with a gateway to the internet but the speeds really tell it: 5G tech for cellular, which has been out in Japan since 2013, is supposed to be a 1Gbps service. Verizon 4Glte is 3.5 Mbps and AT&T 4G is 2.2 MBps

Internet connected pacemakers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? No one is going to ask what the hell a pacemaker is doing connected to the internet? That is the real story here!

the man has a point

[Anonymous Coward]

The sick and disabled obviously should have the right to pay for paid prioritization even if they cant work or have no income to pay for the service.

semi neutrality.

[Anonymous Coward]

They could solve this by saying 95% of subscribers have to have the "standard" service, and they can give 5% a different service. That should basically preserve the spirit of neutrality whilst allowing exceptions.

Re:semi neutrality.

[MercTech]

"They could solve this by saying 95% of subscribers have to have the "standard" service, and they can give 5% a different service. That should basically preserve the spirit of neutrality whilst allowing exceptions."

It is called buying a larger bandwidth ISP service package to get higher speeds.
It comes down to what an ISP is. Is an ISP a provider of a connection to the world wide networks of the internet or is it like cable TV where the owners decide what you can have available and you can buy "premium" services if you can afford it.

Throttling is just a sneaky way of censoring what you are allowed to read and watch.

I think

[nehumanuscrede]

dropping a safe on this man from a great height would do the US a lot more good than harm.

Assuming the safe could even penetrate his aura of self righteousness . . .

Do we even make a safe that big ?

Re:I think

[techno-vampire]

No, no, no, not a safe, an anvil! And the only way to do it right, is from orbit!

Re:I think

[DNS-and-BIND]

I love how we can just openly call for the assassination of public officials we don't like, and get modded up for it. Kill those with whom we disagree! It's OK when we do it!

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

The tree of Liberty, blood, blah blah blah.

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS The rod up your ass must have a rod up its ass.
Calling for someone to be killed by *dropping a safe on them* is a thing called a *joke*, capiche? You know, bugs bunny etc.

feh. nevermind, whatever.

Re: I think

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's ok to say that Hillary, or Al franken should be put in jail based off no proof.

The hypocrisy is so deep with this one.

Only way left to fight it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is to emigrate or at the very least travel to a foreign nation and jump through the hoops of formal renunciation of US Citizenship.

It won't solve the 'American Problem', but it will announce your dissenting voice, and when enough of the right people abandon america it will find out it doesn't have the intellectualism or skillsets necessary to continue functioning.

At this point in America's history those are the only things you can do. America was once founded on colonialism, followed by imperialism. Perhaps this time we can establish a colony without following in the imperialism and nationalism/anti-intellectualism that resulted.

Whether that is through immigrating to other countries and helping explain what went wrong in America so others don't repeat those mistakes, or founding a new nation (seasteading in waters uncontested outside of UNICLOS, or, more financially lucrative but morally reprehensible, taking over a region of contested territory.)

It's fairly simple

[Dripdry]

Pai doesn't care. All he has to do to get a cushy job later on is to say,"Well, we tried" to the telecom industry. If they get even a few bucks more out of this they'll hire him away into executive heaven after he leaves/is ousted. He's showing his loyalty to the bitter end and HE KNOWS this will never, ever get through. It's going to get sued into the turf 5 seconds after being enacted, and will probably die a long slow death in court.

Does ANYONE remember the Bushie administration? The same tactics were used! Do all kinds of things that will never work, but do enough of them and maybe a few will stick. When government fails to yield any benefit, turn around and tell your base,"Government doesn't work!" even though they've been intentionally obstructing the functioning of government and blame it on the next guy. Rinse and repeat!

Ha ha, America is a thirdworld shithole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your freedumbs(tm)!

What else you can expect from a Hindu

[Anonymous Coward]

Hindus are known for their greed for wealth and control. The caste system that created privileged groups of upper castes and exploited groups of lower castes is wired in to the DNA of each Hindu. Given a chance, they will implement the same in to every imaginable thing. It is time to acknowledge the real threat of Hindu terror, which is many times worse than the retarded bomb-wearing Muslim terror.

Ex Lies on Videotape

[fahrbot-bot]

This Just In: Government regulator and former top lawyer for a corporation tells lies that benefit his former employer.
Film at 11.

There is no bottom

[tsa]

No low is low enough for them. Amazing.

Telemedicine line is all you need to know

[drew_kime]

If the only way he can sell this change is to blatantly lie about easily-verifiable things like the telemedicine exception, you know he doesn't have any good arguments.

Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Pai's family is being harassed and suffering death threats, but he refuses to back his ass down. He cares more about petty cash than his own family.

Paid priorisation is fraud.

[Anonymous Coward]

It only makes sense when you are selling more bandwidth than you are willing to provide. It's playing bandwidth musical chairs with your customers, getting them to pay every time they sit down on a chair they already paid for.

How do you know it's false?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the article submitter know it is false? Does she have a crystal ball? Can she see into the future? Can she determine that cause-effect relationship between everything, looking into the foreseeable future?

I didn't think so...

Re: How do you know it's false?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they already can do and do what he is saying WITH NN in place. Getting rid of NN doesn't fix this issue. It's a smoke screen.

Not too concerned

[DaMattster]

I am really not too concerned about this because I am sure this will be challenged in a court. While the challenge is proceeding, plaintiffs can ask for an injunction. When 80+% of people support net neutrality, the court system should side with the people. Ajit Pai's actions really make me want to turn into a troll but I am holding it together.

The lapdog spews again.

[BadTuna]

It seems there is no end to the amount of drivel that this man will allow himself to spew forth.
Sadder still is that a good portion of the people that repealing NN affects, will give this nothing more than a cursory glance and blindly swallow what a person of authority told them is best for them.

he can.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ajit PAI can suck BEAUhd's stolen 3rd member, while MSMASH watches and does lines of coke..
Stolen, with the lack of "balls" around here I figure it cant really be his, right?

Crying wolf much?

[iamacat]

Regulation is needed when there are severe problems in private market and these problems are not being solved for a prolonged period of time. CO2 emissions seems to be a good such example, and either carbon tax or cap and trade a reasonable response. Even phone number portability is arguably unnecessary. The same problem was being actively solved by services such as Google Voice and over the top apps. Arguably legislation suffocated these services and left us stuck with inconvinient phone numbers rather than calling each others by name/email. Internet neutrality - phew! What horrible things were happening in 2015 before the rules were enacted? What is so wrong in many countries that have no neutrality regulations today? Why can't we regulate things later when there is a specific problem rather than pulling doomsday scenarios out of our asses? I saw a Vice News episode last night and this guy is getting racist threats and having to hide his family. Don't people have some other priorities? Like maybe worrying about getting nuked by North Korea instead of Hulu streaming in 4K?

Re:Crying wolf much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What horrible things were happening in 2015 before the rules were enacted?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmE9_84CIAE_1Hi.png:large

What is so wrong in many countries that have no neutrality regulations today?

https://www.meo.pt/internet/internet-movel/telemovel/pacotes-com-telemovel

Why can't we regulate things later when there is a specific problem rather than pulling doomsday scenarios out of our asses?

The doomsday scenarios already started to happen. The problems already exist. So yes, let's keep the regulation.

I saw a Vice News episode last night and this guy is getting racist threats and having to hide his family. Don't people have some other priorities? Like maybe worrying about getting nuked by North Korea instead of Hulu streaming in 4K?

Different people are responsible for those things. A plumber in a school can go around fixing the toilets while the teachers educate students.
On the other hand, you're quite right; the FCC should just drop trying to repeal what's already in place and concentrate on more important things.

Net Neutrality, bad for 5G Technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality (OIO) rules effectively kill the U.S.'s ability to use 5G technology, which solves the problem that Net Neutrality tries and fails to do. Net Neutrality, bad for innovation.

Textbook Case of Nobbling

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks Ajit Pai has become Ajit Paid

Re:Will also save children and fight terrorism AND

[Anonymous Coward]

And, who knows, maybe also stop drug use, illiteracy, stop global warming and fix the infrastructure.

It is fascinating what utterly despicable failed human beings make it to the top in the west today. Having people with zero honor and zero personal morals in charge used to be a privilege of the developing world. Not anymore.

Amen to that. Big corps, like big pharma, have NO INTEREST in the well-being of the average Joe. All they want is to control their capital, however feeble.

Ajit Pai is a Brahmin from India

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Caste is looting India since Independence? https://www.quora.com/Which-ca...
Please sign https://www.petition2congress....