Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Offers No Data For Latest Claim That Net Neutrality Hurt Small ISPs (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said. On these calls, "one constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment," Pai said. But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service. These expansions happened after the FCC imposed its Title II net neutrality rules. (Title II is the statute that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules and regulate common carriers.)
Shocker.
You are expected to have faith in your government officials, not doubt them. Shame on all of you.
With the death-tax, they are motivated by $$cash$$ to help billionaires to keep money in the family, while spinning tales about farm families losing he farm when their pappy died. It convinced many people that estates taxes were BAD, even though the farmer who was hurt by this was never actually real
Now we are hearing about some poor lil mom-n-pop ISP that is gonna be hurt by net neutrality, while mega-corporations are salivating about monetising the user experience
does anybody really by this shite, or is it just to make the politicians feel good?
What small ISPs? The only people who are "small" are resellers as nobody can access the last mile.
Joking about being a shill removes all pretenses of neutrality. Given that nature of government in the news and in the congressional hearings definitely shows a true lack of partiality. We are not amused.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
and where were all you crybabies 20 years ago?
The only thing this fucking traitor will respect is the only thing a fucking traitor deserves.
Plain and simple.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
For someone like him to hold such a position of power and having been so obviously corrupted(verizon), is *another* clear example government isn't even pretending to work for the people anymore.
All hail our corporate overlords; at least until some group develops some balls to correct things as the founding fathers anticipated.
Or is it all anecdotal?
Because looking at the sort of coverage and service growth for the infrastructure from these 5... it's hard to tell. I have seen some numbers that show a slow down, by separating out wireless infrastructure investment from the equation, but it doesn't make much sense.
But hey, if they have some hard numbers that show what the growth "could have been" without NN vs. what it is, wouldn't that be a pretty solid point to debate on?
Oh wait nvm, I forgot I live in a nation of Kool-aide drinkers that are only concerned about sticking it to "liberuls".
There is no doubt that allowing telcoms, who are losing money due to cord cutters jettisoning their overpriced premium services, to install toll booths on the Information Highway will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profit through artificial scarcity. Pai is only concerned with the investment returns of the telcoms and could care less about the rights of the American public, the people he is supposed to serve and protect.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
How would having our upstream providers throttling us help? This guy doesn't care about the truth. He is the type to make his truth up as he goes. The net is going to be a huge piece of shit after this.
" But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it."
I guess you think the Native Americans 'discovered they were wrong' and THAT explains their desperation on the Trail of Tears? Try again with your dumb over generalization buddy. This one flies as well as lead balloon.
does anyone recall whowas hitler's most reviled enemy?
"...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."
Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
Again...just FYI.
Can we stop swinging from his cock now? We already KNOW he's a shill for the industry. We have a pretty got lock on how BIG of a shill he is for the industry. We really don't need six articles on the front page every day about it as there is less than fuckall we can do to have any impact on his decision making process unless we have a few spare billion laying around to shovel into his greedy orifice of suction. So, at this point, it's tough to muster up much more than a "so fucking what?" about it.
However, this logic:
they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it
Doesn't hold. You are being far too optimistic if you think that being right and winning are related.
It's kinda hard to get data on something that doesn't exist.
"Small ISPs..."
What small ISPs?
You should read up on the Whiskey Rebellion, the issues that lead to the Constitution Congress after the original Articles of Confederation, and the causes for killing the buffalo, the opening of japan, the spanish and mexican-american wars, as well as most major economic decisions of the past century.
Hint: While this *SHOULD* be new if our country had ever lived up to its founding principles, it has never ACTUALLY been true in its entire history, from the revolutionary war, onwards.
Of course he didn't offer any actual facts.
Ajit Pai is a lying sack of shit who came into this process with a pre-determined outcome -- giving the telcos control over the internet to monetize as they see fit.
He's not going to give you facts, he's not going to give you evidence. He's just going to do what he was always going to do ... be a lying sack of shit with the interests of the cable companies/telcos as his primary goal.
You should assume that every trump appointee is going to be a lying sack of shit and not rely on facts or evidence to hand things over to corporations.
CAPTCHA: dictator
Indeed
I hope you go sterile from all your fence sitting. This is just an attempt to reconcile your tribalism with what you know to be true.
Fucking sellout.
He's a nerd sellout who is trying to reconcile with his need to root for the same team as his BBQ friends.
A weak worm
At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Err.... both sides?
There's opinion and political rhetoric, then there is reality...
Because one side is explicitly calling out the lies from the other side doesn't make it rhetoric...
Here's an exercise for just one of the lies:
1. Google "net neutrality telemedicine"
2. Take note of the headlines and articles and sources of the articles.
3. Read page 58 footer of the actual rules: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
4. Please tell me how #3 squares away with #2, and these anti-NN people aren't either drinking Kool-aide or flat our liars?
I mean you have to be either well paid or really really really stupid to use an example explicitly stated in the rules as an example of what would be exempt and what can be considered reasonable network management...
People are still confused about net neutrality... but let's stop crying about it so that in 10 years when we have to watch porn metered by the minute through AOL cableboxes... we can look back fondly on slashdot's twilight and remember that that all the articles were about bitcoins and sexual harassment.
So what exactly about your post keeps you from signing in to show us your username?
Probably because you don't have a username.
Google for Brett Glass and Lariat.
Ummm. It's not a "death tax." It is not money that is double taxed. It's a tax against the income your benificiaries receive. You can't give infinite money to your children when you are alive without them paying taxes on it, because it's income to them. Just like game show or lottery winnings. There should be no difference in the transfer of assets to children after you are dead. They should pay taxes on those assets at standard rates without getting a basis adjustment at the time of your death. Which brings the purchase price of all assets their value at your death, rather than the actual price you paid for them.
The term "Death Tax" is a complete lie. It's just a "reduced" income tax to those receiving the assets.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
I think Texans refer to this kind of BS as "all hat and no cattle". He needs more lessons from The DON of the outfit.
Another Ajit Lie. It's almost like he isn't even trying at this point. Oh wait, he isn't.
I'm definitely on one side of the fence bashing those on the other. You obviously either don't understand what I said, or don't like getting bashed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Won't happen. One of the largest ISPs happens to be one of the largest MPAA members. Some of the other MPAA memebers are looking for their own ISPs to buy.
If the MPAA starts suing ISPs it'll be to wipe out the little bit of competition from decent ISPs like sonic.
But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it.
So you think every woman in history who was raped and murdered was wrong because they lost the fight?
Fuck you and your "might makes right" mindset.
Everybody's tired of this, it's not just you. A lot of the outrage here stems from the fact that most of us thought this bullshit was over two years ago.
Ah quite... So you are now realizing that a government that rules though this kind of regulation is a danger to all. Rules should not be made this way, with faceless nameless "administrators" who are not elected make (or unmake) such significant rules.
Only NOW you are upset? Yea, cry me a river. It was good enough when you where getting your way, but now it's a corrupt system? Please.
This is the "I have a phone and a pen" legacy, which is getting rolled back the very way it was created, behind the scenes by unnamed unelected bureaucrats that are accountable to their appointers, but not the people. This kind of government and the rules it has created should go away. Congress should undo this mess they have made.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Oh dang I have a bit of egg on my face. Still you're doing a little fence sitting here.
The crazies are actually the best thing. Somewhere there is a total fucking nut on disability who hasn't left his house in years. He's been sitting there watching days of our lives, dragon ball Z, and spanking it to my little pony over bittorrent. Safe and sound where we never have to deal with him.
I hope one such person gives that smug fuck a creampai to the face in public for closing his psychic bond to twilight sparkle. Terry Davis. Paging terry davis the internet needs a hero!
There are tons of them. Try going to one of the broadcast network's streaming services (such as AMC or USA), and try to watch one of the full episodes of a show. To do that, you have to prove you have some kind of cable subscription. There are the big ones listed up top (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dish, etc.), but you can look at the full list. It's a VERY long list. Sure, a few are only TV only, but the vast majority are also ISPs. And, yes, most of them are small ISPs.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Find well reasoned, detailed analysis in other posts.
People get desperate when something important to them is threatened. It does not follow that their desperation is a sign that they don't have reason to be desperate. A good place to start: Cui bono?
This is not a good argument. You can't elect every public official, there are 22 million public employees in the united states. How many of those are managerial-level, with decision-making power? You're intending to have elections for all of those? It's perfectly reasonable for congress to delegate responsibility for tasks which they can't handle, either because they don't have the time or because they don't have the expertise. That is what they have done here and, for the most part, that is what they do every time they handle anything.
Further, by framing it this way you're implying that this as a failure of government. The FCC is working exactly as intended: these commissioners were nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican senate. For some reason, Network Neutrality has become a partisan issue and Republicans are on the side of wanting to kill it. So this result is a predictable one, as a consequence of last year's election.
Congress can overrule the FCC any time they want. The Senate also could have rejected Pai's nomination, or the other commissioners, if they didn't want to see net neutrality killed. It's not like this is a surprise, we knew that Pai was going to do this and they knew that Pai was going to do this too. So the grandparent is spot-on here: if we're looking for people to blame for this, it starts with the commissioners, but it's also the people who appointed them (the president and senators), then the people who appointed them (the voters), then the people who are really in charge of all of this (the ISPs).
he changed his tune real fast and became a champion for fairness and network neutrality.
the cleveland browns have a better chance of going to a super bowl in the next decade than that happening again.
Iâ(TM)ve seen so much about this issue that Iâ(TM)m now indifferent to it. If it passes, it passes.
Oh yeah there's tons of them.
No there aren't.
You didn't provide even 1 example so your point is a lie.
Just like everything else in the USA.
But this puts the cart before the horse. Congress shouldn't have to intervene to avert the miscarriage of regulation by the likes of the FCC. Congress should have to actually pass laws that the FCC is tasked with administrating. Sure the FCC can write prospective bills for Congress to pass and serve as the subject matter experts for congress and the executive branch to consult with, but congress should be passing these as laws using the constitutional prescribed means.
What happened is Congress got lazy and to full of themselves. They turned the likes of the FCC from administrators of the rules to the writers of the rules so congress didn't have to bother. All the FCC does now is publish in the federal register and voilà, it's the law of the land in 90 or 180 days. What SHOULD happen is the FCC should be tasked with maybe authoring and serving as technical advisers on bills, which congress debates and passes or not and the president signs into law or not.
At least that's how it USED to work, back in the days the constitution was taking seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Despite all of Trump's lies that this is going to help the middle class and hurt him, this is literally robbing from the poor to give to the rich ..."
I wish the U.S. had a competent government.
It's not like they are going to install their own network across the area. Duh.
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Congress does pass laws which the FCC is tasked with administering - they passed a law giving the FCC the task of classifying services. They also passed a law giving the FCC the task of administering common carrier rules for telecommunication services. When the FCC classified ISPs as telecommunication services, and then required them to act as common carriers, they were carrying out these two tasks.
Now this new president and congress don't want net neutrality, so they nominated and confirmed commissioners who would reclassify ISPs. This is all working exactly as intended. There are no rogue agents here, no bureaucrats striking out on their own. And even if there were, congress always has the final say.
Cry me a goddamn river if Net Neutrality is the fucking "government overreach" that concerns you.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Yes, that's my point. Congress abrogated their responsibility to make laws. They got lazy. Now we have a process that side steps the founders intent and it's resulting in a mess of regulations which are oppressive and unnecessarily complex.
Congress needs to undo this and clean up their mess.... Eventually the states may take care this if congress doesn't, but I don't think having to use the article 5 constitutional amendment process is the best way to fix this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who's crying.. I'm getting my way here.. ;)
I'm just not naïve enough to not understand that what goes around, comes around. Someday the shoe will be on the other party who can have it their way too. I want this fixed, permanently, and that takes congressional action, so this is fixed and takes more than another party appointing new commissioners to get their way again.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Ajit Pai, as many in this administration, is just trying to co-opt the narrative and build some alternate reality that agrees with his own agenda. It's just sad that some people still listens to their garbage.
Done.
Brett Glass's problem with Net Neutrality is that he doesn't allow his users to run servers (at home) without paying the business rate. "we’ll almost certainly be forced to shift everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive and offer less value to consumers,"... says the guy who's the only ISP in his area.
He's literally the reason we all want Title II protection.
I'm anti-google so I searched wikipedia and found nothing. However the home server issue is one I'm passionate about that I feel is vastly underrepresented by the various mainstream narratives.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
Net Neutrality in my mind should be focused on the taxation-based-on-use-type-and-use-restrictions issue. Obviously the ISPs want the ability to tax at will.
Pai is providing us to be fucked by ISP. That makes him a sex trafficker.
That means that Comcast (and all the other anti NN providers) can get charged through the nose for their transit links?
That's going to be a roflcopter.
I don't know how I can say this more clearly: Congress made the law. They didn't abrogate shit, they specified - "Here is what a telecommunications service is. Here are the restrictions on it. We're going to call these 'common carrier' restrictions, and they come with some benefits too." and "We are delegating the responsibility of determining what a telecommunications service is to this panel of experts. They know way more about this than we do and can (supposedly) do a better job in this regard. They will also apply and enforce our rules which, let me be clear, are our rules. Which we made, and did not abrogate."
I don't know why you're trying to drag the founders into this. They didn't make the FCC, but they did plenty of delegating. That's how you govern.
What do you want fixed? The existence of executive orders? Net neutrality upsets you somehow? I'm not American, I don't understand how this is a partisan issue.
Do you not like the Internet?
The only reasons I heard to oppose Net Neutrality would be summed up something like:
The Internet is a 30 year old experiment which must end in its current form because
- it is a tool for foreign propaganda (Russia, China ISIS)
- It is a tool for foreign agents to attack citizens' computers
- it is a tool for crime against American corporations and for criminals to collude, communicate and evade detection
- it is a tool for corporations to surveil people's private lives
- it is a tool for evading state taxes
- it is a tool for pornography, violence and morally depraved activities
- It is killing American businesses such as content distribution and the free press
- it is a tool which hurts the American entertainment industry because of mass piracy
Apparently removing Net Neutrality will give the telcos the ability to restrict usage so arbitrarily and severely that you'll only be able to see what the American corporate silos want you to see. No more free exchange of ideas, but instead it is a tool for a "consumer" to purchase "content", and for the dying "content distributors" to charge for access to "consumers".
I'm trying really hard to understand if there's some logic behind this. Is this world, where the Internet as we know it is dead and the pipes running into your house simply carry a better selection of what was available on TV thirty years ago, what you want?
Net neutrality and the Internet itself are like a dream come true. The Internet was built on net neutrality and the lack of laws protecting it was threatening its very existence in the U.S.. The arguments supporting it is in every online innovation made in the past three decades, including this dumb website we're on.
Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding your comment that you're "gettting my way here ;)"
That's an interesting fact that gives the idea that is inspired by Obama quite the element of truthiness to it. Of course it was coined by Colbert in response to Bush and the tendency to ignore facts by his supporters.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
All the sperms that went to your momma's egg were a lie. The lie was, "This person will be of value."
Net Neutrality is not what the name implies... It was passed along partisan lines and will be repealed on partisan lines.
I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. But that's just my opinion based on my reading of the rules.
But the political debate here is how the rule making of federal agencies is done, outside of the constitutional mandated legislative process, bypassing Congress and the president's responsibility. This legal construct created by Congress and the President does two things. First it makes creating rules easy and quick. Congress doesn't have to act, pass a bill for the president to sign anymore, the agency just publishes the rules and they become the law of the land without any congressional review or presidential signature. Second, anything that can be quickly done, can be quickly undone. This leads to uncertainty and confusion where the population finds it hard to know and understand what the law of the land actually is.
I also realize that while my political views are currently benefitting from the current political power structure, days will come when this isn't true. I believe that we *should* get this fixed; that we should return to having congress writing bills and the president agreeing or not to sign them. We should slow this whole process down, make congress actually do their job and I think the country and both parties will benefit. I also realize that few see it this way.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Are you not hearing what I'm saying then? Yes, congress did this, they abrogated their responsibility, by delegating to these government agencies.
You may not like my choice of words or my implication that Congress *shouldn't* have done this in my view, but that doesn't change what they did.
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility. Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way. Net Neutrality *should* have been made into law by being a bill passed by both houses of congress that was signed by the president, not a rule created by the politically appointed commissioners over at the FCC.
And I don't agree that congress cannot directly manage the law making. Sure, you'd be slower to get laws in place, but you'd also be more likely to have a more limited and understandable set of rules for everybody if our elected representatives where actually doing what the constitution says they should be doing. I recall why this country got started, it wasn't just about taxation or throwing tea into Boston harbor. I think we've forgotten from where we came and why our republic was designed as it was. But I wax poetic now..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility.
Okay. They didn't give up any authority, they hired a subordinate. Having a subordinate does not mean that they are not in charge. Also, if you have a responsibility to get something done, then ordering your lackey to do it is not evading that responsibility. It can potentially be a lazy approach, I won't argue with that, but it isn't necessarily lazy. If you are a manager then it is your job to determine whether your various tasks are best served by doing them yourself or by delegating them to those people whom you manage.
... I don't think I can keep going with this. There's only so many ways I can say the same thing: Congress made the laws. They did it in the constitutionally prescribed way. All that the FCC did was determine, "Here is how the law (which congress made) applies to this particular instance." The net neutrality rules are not laws, the laws are the U.S. Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is the job of the FCC to determine how those laws apply.
This part though: "Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way."
There are, literally, millions of public servants who do the same thing every day:
V: "Hello, my name is Verizon. I am here at the DMV because I would like a driver's license."
D: "Okay Verizon, I can help you with that... Hm... After looking into this, it seems that you are not a human. Rather, you are a multinational corporation. I'm sorry, I can only give driver's licenses to humans."
V: "Hey now, the law says that corporations are people. That means that I, a corporate person, can have a driver's license."
D: "The law says that corporations are people in some respects. It does not say that corporations can have driver's licenses."
V: "I don't think that you should make that determination, I would like congress to decide whether I can have a driver's license."
D: "It's not a federal law."
V: "Fine. The state legislature then. They should determine whether each individual person can have a driver's license. On a case-by-case basis."
D: "That isn't how it works. The state legislature makes some laws about that, and then it's my job to determine how those laws apply to each person who comes in here asking for a driver's license."
V: "So... what? You're the driver's license god then? You can choose who gets a driver's license and who doesn't, and I can't do shit about it? There's no appeal? I want to talk to your manager."
D: "I'm the manager at this location. But no, of course there's an appeal. If you think that I'm not applying the law correctly, then you can sue. And then the court will decide whether I'm upholding the law as the legislature wrote it, or whether I've made a mistake. Don't you remember how you did that in 2010, when the FCC made a decision about network neutrality that you didn't like? And you remember how the court agreed with you, that the FCC had applied the law incorrectly? So the FCC had to go back and change it? You remember that Verizon? Same thing here. I don't think you're eligible for a driver's license, based on the law that the state legislature made, but if you disagree then you can sue and we'll see what the court has to say about it."
It's time to restore the 56k jobs that crooked Hillary stole from decent working class people.
#maga
While I get your political stance, is there anything specifically which makes you say: “I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. ”
It seems to have been immediately effective against throttling, censorship and stabilizing to business.
First, the "You are a common carrier" but not really status the FCC tries to define. They are cutting the legislative baby in half, when it's not necessary, in an attempt to appease all sides. They keep in place an ISP's responsibility to filter specific types of traffic (things like child porn and such) while trying to claim that the ISP may not filter or throttle speeds for specific services. Such compromises don't help anybody.
Second, the exception of VPN services might be assumed to exempt VPN providers from the non-filtering of content rules. Thus the FCC gave an easy out for ISP's who which to packet filter.
Third, "providers" of data services will have higher costs to meet all the requirements newly levied on them. Such costs will be passed on to customers.
Fourth, the grievance process, where complaints about violations of the NN rules is hugely complex for the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the staff or infrastructure for this, so I figure the complaint process will be pretty much non-existent. Sure, you can file a complaint, but good luck getting the FCC to look at it, much less deal with it.
That's just a start of a few specifics. Go read the 400 pages here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Paragraph 304, 305 are pretty clear, they even highlight the point:
Does it say anywhere that they're "responsible" to filter it? Has it come up in the past few years as an issue?
It really doesn't look like a bad document, and it is very clear in paragraph 75 why it should exist.