So the future can mean some ultra wealthy corporate bigwig can order his minions to slow to a never page loading crawl things like.... The New York Times.
6
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
And the less you regulate monopolies and duopolies-- which is the ISP situation in many, if not most, areas-- the more you end up paying for something and the poorer quality that something is. That, too, is basic economics.
And the less you regulate monopolies and duopolies-- which is the ISP situation in many, if not most, areas-- the more you end up paying for something and the poorer quality that something is. That, too, is basic economics.
3
This is just the 1st step to deregulating all utilities. Demand pricing is next for electricity. Your air-conditioning bill could become quite high.
One would think that the only thing that matters these days is big business. Tax cuts, the end of net neutrality, tariffs and more are Trump's answer to everything and everyone. These benefit primarily the wealthy while 99% of Americans will be harmed. I am so sick of these antics.
3
Police itself? What could possibly go wrong with that? Look at how nicely the auto industry, the energy industry, and especially the banking industry, have policed their own operations... costing the taxpayers $billions. History shows that for-profit enterprises need to be regulated from head to toe.
5
The name 'Net Neutrality' sounds good on the surface; but the devil is in the details. I'm leery of 'Net Neutrality' as it's currently written.
If you have about 33-minutes; here is an interview with Ajit Pai that I found interesting.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
https://youtu.be/s1IzN9tst28
If you have about 33-minutes; here is an interview with Ajit Pai that I found interesting.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
https://youtu.be/s1IzN9tst28
An industry policing itself. Yes, we know how well that always works.
Internet providers are akin to utility providers who are regulated. Most communities have only one internet provider, aside from satellite. They are usually licensed and are monopolies in their licensed areas. As a monopoly they need to be regulated to prevent their innate greed from running rampant over the public. Regulation stifling innovation is a red herring. Current regulation has not hindered their growth and as long as they can earn an additional buck it will not hinder their future growth.
5
People in general want an equal opportunity society. That is the principal idea of the American Dream. Government is supposed to promote equal opportunity through policy. Utilities are regulated to promote equal opportunity.
Ethical capitalism must be based on fair competition.
Ajit Pai is supporting policies that would create robber barons. Let competition be brutal and violent. ( The concept is the same, just hidden by cultural mores. )
Ajit Pai would not be part of a proper-Senate class.
Ethical capitalism must be based on fair competition.
Ajit Pai is supporting policies that would create robber barons. Let competition be brutal and violent. ( The concept is the same, just hidden by cultural mores. )
Ajit Pai would not be part of a proper-Senate class.
Pai says: “It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” Really? What in the world does that mean? What kind of regulation and "less" of what? This isn't "economics," it's just ideological buzz-wordage. Regulations prevent corporations (whose only mission is to make a profit) from overcharging consumers and deceptively selling faulty products and services. The "free market" (which we know isn't free at all -- that's basic economics) doesn't work without limits and regulations.
2
“It would put consumers at the mercy of phone and cable companies,”
Guess what? They already are. Opening up broadband to competition instead of treating it as a regulated monopoly will bring the cost down. Eco 101.
Guess what? They already are. Opening up broadband to competition instead of treating it as a regulated monopoly will bring the cost down. Eco 101.
2
Hahahaha.
No, less regulation will lead to a Standard Oil of telecom and them charging you $1000 a month for broadband because they can. Free markets only work when the barriers to entry are low or the product is completely optional, which is also basic economics.
No, less regulation will lead to a Standard Oil of telecom and them charging you $1000 a month for broadband because they can. Free markets only work when the barriers to entry are low or the product is completely optional, which is also basic economics.
2
Guess what? The product is completely optional.
1
So sick of watching these con artists dismantle the very foundation of what made America a global leader in business and ethics.
A free and open market can only work with strong competition and a level playing field. That means breaking up Oligopolies and maintaining a strong regulatory infrastructure. That is how consumers get the most out of any industry or service. By the time Trump is done the 1% will own it all and they won't pay much tax for pleasure.
A free and open market can only work with strong competition and a level playing field. That means breaking up Oligopolies and maintaining a strong regulatory infrastructure. That is how consumers get the most out of any industry or service. By the time Trump is done the 1% will own it all and they won't pay much tax for pleasure.
4
They overlook one major tool we have at our disposal-- if we dont like the deal they shove on us...guess what???? we dont pay our service provider bill till we get a fair shake!!!!!!
You are exactly right. Of course by failing to pay the ISP bill you are explicitly choosing to pull the plug on your internet service. Which brings us to my point, namely that it is possible to live without the internet. Hard as that is for many people under the age of 40 to believe, high speed broadband internet access is not essential to life or even to success.
So, the head of the FCC, a government agency that regulates all things communications, thinks that internet access shouldn't be regulated. Why have the FCC at all? Who does he really work for?
8
Ajit Pai is the new face of corporate Fascism. Same as the old face.
4
Well we certainly know who is buttering Mr. Pai's bread.
4
Ah yes. Bigger the business the more honest it is, and more important that government officials kowtow to the unfettered free market business, even as ordinary customers get poor service, unsafe products, and economic poverty. Chairman Pai truly embodies the worst of big corporation arrogance.
6
It appears Mr. Pai is behaving as if he were a subsidiary of Verizon and other telecommunications,cable and broadcasting giants. He must think he is still on the staff and being paid by Verizon Communications. Time to sever the umbilical cord with his former employer. Serve the public or leave the FCC.
8
There is a new dingo in town.
3
Once again the American consumer will be screwed. We already have second rate service and speed at some of the highest cost in the world, now it will do nothing but deteriorate unless you are willing to be extorted by the cable and communications companies.
8
The economy must expand to survive. If you can't find new markets or more people, you must increase profits on existing business by hook or crook; usually this involves forming monopolies and screwing everyone else.
1
Oh boy. He is now in charge of the FCC???? Goodnight folks.
5
There are two simple enough solutions to the whole net neutrality thing: First, you could separate the content providers from the access providers. Put a firewall between the company that sells you internet access and the companies that sell content, like Comcast. The access provider would have no interest or knowledge of what content you create or consume.
This could be backed up locally by a sort of public option: communities, counties, or states should start running their own ISPs, just like many run utilities today. Problem solved...
This could be backed up locally by a sort of public option: communities, counties, or states should start running their own ISPs, just like many run utilities today. Problem solved...
2
Ajit's current gig is just to make sure that all the roadblocks are lifted for his previous and future employer Verizon. He has zero interest in helping public.
Once he has accomplished his task of completely destroying Net neutrality and shaping the internet for the big corporations, he will go back to his real job at Verizon.
Once he has accomplished his task of completely destroying Net neutrality and shaping the internet for the big corporations, he will go back to his real job at Verizon.
13
Once this genie is out of the bottle, there will be no way to stuff it back in.
I support Net-Neutrality as it provides rules, fairness in competition and a level playing field for all consumers and businesses. The Internet must continue to be treated as a utility to help prevent unfair advantage from a progressively consolidated Data Content Industry. Everyone, please contact the FCC, your Representatives and the White House and make your feelings known on this matter. It's important.
I support Net-Neutrality as it provides rules, fairness in competition and a level playing field for all consumers and businesses. The Internet must continue to be treated as a utility to help prevent unfair advantage from a progressively consolidated Data Content Industry. Everyone, please contact the FCC, your Representatives and the White House and make your feelings known on this matter. It's important.
10
To be fair, police hasn't been friendly for blacks their business enterprises either. They've been heavily thwarted from investing in anything. One might say, they're hardly left with the space to do business, in some cases they can hardly breathe. Let's stop policing them.
Let's stop see government as a public utility, now we're at it.
Privatize it in its entirety.
That would finally render us all smart.
Let's stop see government as a public utility, now we're at it.
Privatize it in its entirety.
That would finally render us all smart.
1
With the Trump administration and the Republican Party in charge all this feels like we've been overtaken by some communist communism. Net neutraility, environment, clean water, national monuments, relations with Mexico and Canada, healthcare, and not to forget tax reform. This country is in serious trouble under the current administration. Will anyone recognize America in 2020? What is the point of Trump still holding rallies other than to make himself feel good. And, his continuing criticism of Obama? It's not about what Obama did or didnt do. What are you doing Mr President besides making a mess of things?
8
GUM, Aeroflot and Ladas for all.
Regulations are put in place for the one main reason that the gop doesn't seem to understand or simply chooses to ignore... greed.
This ridiculous, paper thin smoke screen from the gop that regulations inhibit corporations (who are currently making record profits) from reaching their full potential is dangerous and an insult to anyone paying attention. This ruse eliminates fairness and whats good for the American people... as always, the gop's only concern is that the rich get richer.
This ridiculous, paper thin smoke screen from the gop that regulations inhibit corporations (who are currently making record profits) from reaching their full potential is dangerous and an insult to anyone paying attention. This ruse eliminates fairness and whats good for the American people... as always, the gop's only concern is that the rich get richer.
2
"...he says are harmful to business."
As if needed, here's another glaring example with a definitive example of just who this administration is going to champion, shield and protect...from we, the poor, the voiceless, the exploited.
As if needed, here's another glaring example with a definitive example of just who this administration is going to champion, shield and protect...from we, the poor, the voiceless, the exploited.
7
One thing is clear: Mr. Ajit Pai wants to make more money, by squeezing internet users every which way he can! So it is imperative that his greed be regulated, so that we all get to experience less of it, going by his own logic.
4
These idiots!! They are allowing big business to take control of the internet. This is NOT a good thing for anybody. I own online internet radio stations (Please forgive the shamless plugs for my stations: www.1067thebridge.com, www.thegospelbridge.com, www.ourradionetwork.com). If the F.C.C. kills net neutrality, big business will be allowed priory, they will be able to set speed, bandwith allocation,and priority. The will give priority to corporate stations and larger providers ahead of smaller privately owned ones. They will also be able to control access, costs and bandwith for data use by individuals and companies, not to mention what outlets get preferential treatment over others. Only the big companies will get major exposure on the internet if they allow this to happen. Please write to Congress and others to stop these plans to kill net neutrality. They are trying to do to the internet what they did to terrestrial radio after deregulation in the late 1990's. They removed rules against corporate monopolies which led to the rise of the corporate radio giants like IHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel) Cox, Ennis, Radio One, Univision and Cumulus just to name a few. Almost all of the smaller, non-corporate stations got bought out, that's why we have all of these cookie cutter formats all over the country these days. Many broadcasters left terrestrial radio, and can be found doing radio online these day. Please don't let the F.C.C. do this to the internet!
19
John,
They are not idiots. They know exactly what they are doing.
This is a government of plutocrats whose basic aim, from the beginning, has been the eventual "selling of America" to the disadvantage of its people and the advantage of the corporation interests they represent.
They are not idiots. They know exactly what they are doing.
This is a government of plutocrats whose basic aim, from the beginning, has been the eventual "selling of America" to the disadvantage of its people and the advantage of the corporation interests they represent.
5
Is it time yet for a distributed telecom system where we each mount a mini-cell to our homes and connect ourselves to the world, one house to another to another, rather than through centralized providers who sift and exploit our personal data day after day. Come on techies; connect us peer to peer, remove the corporate mediators!
1
One of the happier days in my life was the day I returned Time-Warner's equipment and cancelled their service. Google Fiber came into my community and offered FREE basic Internet service for seven years. I switched to free over-the-air television and cut my expenses to zero. To allow large ISP's like Spectrum and Comcast to control my Internet service is an abomination.
2
The Times' headline editor is too diplomatic regarding Mr. Pai and his intentions. A more objective headline would have been, "Pai Murders Net Neutrality, Gives Broadband Monopolies Right to Strangle Infant Internet and Starve Subscribers With Choice of Paying Through the Nose or Viewing Mostly Garbage -- Ads and More Ads -- When Using the Internet." Tell it like it is.
7
They're all the same, they are totally predictable, they will bleed us for every cent we have, they are all Mitch McConnell clones, consisting of threats unless they tow the line, the line of lies, deceit and the absolute measurement of which company will give them how much.
And the consumer be damned. And in spite of all this, the majority of Americans believe the lie and let them get on with it.
We are on the brink of first, the corporate and billionaire dictatorship, and second, seeing carbon in the atmosphere slowly but surely kill us all, beginning, of course, with the children. And we tolerate it, election after election.
And the consumer be damned. And in spite of all this, the majority of Americans believe the lie and let them get on with it.
We are on the brink of first, the corporate and billionaire dictatorship, and second, seeing carbon in the atmosphere slowly but surely kill us all, beginning, of course, with the children. And we tolerate it, election after election.
3
Do we really want all the information we get coming from just one source, like a Fox Network, or even the NY Times for that matter? I for one would rather find a variety of free speech options available for me to peruse and to use. Beware the Pravda-net...
3
I am guessing it is only another week at most before we find out how Mr. Pai is benefitting personally from championing this position. Like everyone else in this administration, his logic is so obviously flawed that you have to conclude that he is either stupid or corrupt. And despite my dislike for his position, he seems to be intelligent enough to recognize the holes in his arguments, so it must be the latter.
What a shame every corner of this "administration" (a misnomer, when it's goal seems to be to cease administration if anything and everything) is.
What a shame every corner of this "administration" (a misnomer, when it's goal seems to be to cease administration if anything and everything) is.
8
Perhaps Mr. Pai can recite all the past successes of industry self-regulation to the businesses and individuals who would be affected by this Administration's killing off net neutrality.
Meantime. Amazon and Walmart get the express while The Shop Around The Corner's website is stuck on the local. To paraphrase Bill Maher, "To people who ask, 'Why doesn't our economy work for (small businesses like mine)'? His response: "Because it's not designed to."
Meantime. Amazon and Walmart get the express while The Shop Around The Corner's website is stuck on the local. To paraphrase Bill Maher, "To people who ask, 'Why doesn't our economy work for (small businesses like mine)'? His response: "Because it's not designed to."
5
Pai has revealed that he doesn't understand economics, basic or whatever. There are many goods that wouldn't even get to market without regulation. For example, what about (Nobel-prize winning economist) George Akerlof's study on informational asymmetries?
4
Pai represents everything that is meant by the term 'regulatory capture': he is a tool of the near monopoly industry of ISPs who are providing terrible service with no competition. Remember the Ma Bell break up? Look how that turned out. We are on the road to $200 a month for dial up while the rest of the world moves to 1G as a utility. Congress must act to save us from this predatory policy initiative.
8
"The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get."
This applies also to "somethings" like pollution, monopolies, environmental degradation, habitat loss, tobacco use, and litter, which, of course, is exactly why we regulate them.
This applies also to "somethings" like pollution, monopolies, environmental degradation, habitat loss, tobacco use, and litter, which, of course, is exactly why we regulate them.
8
What can one say. We the taxpayers paid for the internet. It was turned over to industry as part of all such government programs. Now they want to not only increase profits -- by selling to the highest bidder -- stifling competition -- but want to sell user's personal data. Censorship - better believe it will happen. Self regulation -- absolutely -- they will regulate themselves into the highest profit attainable.
Another misfit running an agency and - as I noted long ago -- let the selling of American begin.
Another misfit running an agency and - as I noted long ago -- let the selling of American begin.
4
Pai is out of his depth and completely misunderstands what a utility is. "Let the industry police itself?" What could possibly go wrong there? History is full of examples of companies being responsible and taking care when making decisions, so that consumers are fully informed and remain the priority. Right?
26
Free Market? What happened to open access to what I PAY FOR! Net Neutrality rollback just creates monopolistic behavior and REDUCES competition. Small business will suffer the consequences.
11
Oh, excellent. I look forward to paying a hefty premium to access anything not owned by [whichever media content company buys Charter]. More consolidation and anti-competitive mergers of regional monopolist service providers with media companies is exactly what the public is asking for! I applaud this move to "self-regulation". This is the exact approach that has served consumers so very well in the financial markets, the energy sector, and tobacco products.
It's really astonishing that people just sit back and take this stuff. "Cheaper broadband services!" -- yeah, sounds great. Too bad it'll be at dial-up speeds for any website not owned by your ISP's parent company.
It's really astonishing that people just sit back and take this stuff. "Cheaper broadband services!" -- yeah, sounds great. Too bad it'll be at dial-up speeds for any website not owned by your ISP's parent company.
13
With all the malarky spewed by Mr. Pai and the telecoms, we really need to cut through the baloney and bring clarity to what they are actually saying. In a nutshell, the cable and internet providers, who operate in markets with high barriers to entry and enjoy near monopolies, want the freedom to charge more for their services with new and creative billing tiers, packages, and the like. That is what this is all about. The freedom to make more money off consumers who have little choice of alternatives to buying from from the big boys who control the game. Mr. Pai is merely doing their bidding and it should surprise no one.
15
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” Let's stop regulating clean air so that we can have more of it!
13
Ha. Good one.
Ajit Pai has been appointed chairman of the FCC in order to diminish the FCCs power via decreasing regulation. Much like many of the presidents appointees. Mr. Pai as a former insider to the industry from his time spent at Verizon, and then at law firms representing the telecom industry has only one interest in mind. The corporate interest. With US citizens already paying some of the highest rates and fees for some of the poorest internet service in the world, things are only going to get worse with the dismantling of net neutrality. And instead of trying to ensure that companies offer the citizens a good value for the money and a level of service that is comparable, if not exceeding what other nations provide, he has chosen to represent the corporations.
And once again the consumer suffers as the telecom lobby lobby groups celebrate that one of their own is running the show now.
And once again the consumer suffers as the telecom lobby lobby groups celebrate that one of their own is running the show now.
26
"The move would, in effect, largely leave the industry to police itself."
Enough said.
Enough said.
9
One thing is utterly certain: No internet provider will ever allow Ajit Pai's personal information to come to harm.
7
We did not want Trump to sign away our privacy on the internet.
Trump sold us down the drain. ISP's can now sell our browsing history and data to whoever wants it. Including a meddling Trump. Journalists beware. Political rivals beware. Everyone beware.
We wanted to keep Net Neutrality. With Obama, we kept it.
With Trump? It's not what the People Want. It is what Trump wants.
He does not represent the country. He represents himself and his cronies.
Trump sold us down the drain. ISP's can now sell our browsing history and data to whoever wants it. Including a meddling Trump. Journalists beware. Political rivals beware. Everyone beware.
We wanted to keep Net Neutrality. With Obama, we kept it.
With Trump? It's not what the People Want. It is what Trump wants.
He does not represent the country. He represents himself and his cronies.
11
Finally, a President that realizes that things like Health Care, Public Education and Internet Access aren't important. Er, that doesn't include Twitter, now does it?
6
Wow. Just freaking wow.
Now I will continue having the choice of Comcast or Comcast.
The rest of the wired world will eat us for lunch if we don't connect with affordable, high speed internet access for all.
Keeping us lagging behind in high tech is helpful for us exactly how?
If the young, fresh ones don't revolt about this one, they're doomed.
It's their future, they ought to get politically active for a change about something that may matter to them.
Now I will continue having the choice of Comcast or Comcast.
The rest of the wired world will eat us for lunch if we don't connect with affordable, high speed internet access for all.
Keeping us lagging behind in high tech is helpful for us exactly how?
If the young, fresh ones don't revolt about this one, they're doomed.
It's their future, they ought to get politically active for a change about something that may matter to them.
17
Net Neutrality is a big block to competition. Companies could charge cheaper rates for people who don't want high real-time high bandwidth connections but net neutrality says that all data must be treated the same.
Basically, the elderly and the poor are subsidizing the gamers.
Basically, the elderly and the poor are subsidizing the gamers.
2
This is incorrect. ISP's already offer various tiers of connection speed in many areas. What net neutrality does is prevent the ISP from sending traffic at different speeds depending on where the data comes from.
The internet isn't like insurance at all. There only reason there is profit in it is because it is so cheap. The corporations simply play you for a fool, your subscriptions don't pay for my use or any of the infrastructure. Tax payers paid for that backbone years ago before it was privatized and the piddling "enhancements" that ATT and others gripe about doesn't cost them anything, we're still footing the bill for all of it. They are making so much money off of us, it is almost inexcusable.
8
Quite the opposite unless you're cross-eyed.
Maybe United can offer the telecoms industry lessons on how to "police themselves."
22
I do hope Mr. Pai reconsiders. He's about to come out from under the security blanket of being relatively obscure, to become one of the most unpopular figures in America among those who think for a living. Good luck with that, Mr. Pai.
26
Who do I call to buy Trump's browsing history? Or for that matter, everyone in the White House's browsing history? Or perhaps that can be obtained for free through a FOIA request since they are all public "servants."
Roll over Lincoln: It is now "Government of the People LLC. by the People Corp. for the People Inc." Corporations and companies are people too, no?
Roll over Lincoln: It is now "Government of the People LLC. by the People Corp. for the People Inc." Corporations and companies are people too, no?
11
The communications act of 1934 was one of the wisest pieces of legislation ever enacted. Today's FCC has finally finished the job started with Reagan's first move, which was to amend local cross ownership of media rules. The dismantlement of this legislation resulted in local market ownership consolidation and the creation of mega media conglomerates. Along with network "reality" demigods today's media spawns. And now of course we've finally achieved unfettered consumption and commerce. Hoover is spinning in his grave.
12
Reagan also ended the Fairness in broadcasting Doctrine.
Nothing had to be fair and balanced after that.
Clear Channel bought up numerous radio stations across the country and Rush Limbaugh was on all of them.
Then Fox news appeared in the 90's
Nothing had to be fair and balanced after that.
Clear Channel bought up numerous radio stations across the country and Rush Limbaugh was on all of them.
Then Fox news appeared in the 90's
13
Bill Clinton's Telecom Policy Reform Act of 1996 was the second punch in the telecom industry's one-two to liberate itself from the original farsighted law.
1
Exactly!! If you know how the F.C.C. Allowed deregulation to turn commercial radio into corporate monopolies, wait till you see what they would do to the internet.
Ajit Pai, said "high-speed internet service should no longer be treated like a public utility with strict rules, as it is now." However, the definition of a public utility is "a business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large." Public utilities include things such as water, electricity, natural gas, and telephone service. In the 21st Century is Internet service any less of a necessity than telephone service?
For things that are non-essential, free market supply and demand works. If a particular sneaker manufacturer wants to charge $200 for a pair of sneakers, consumers have other options. The Internet is too essential to every day life to leave it to the whims of the industry to make the rules. If industry has a free hand to regulate itself, will it choose what is best for consumer or what is best for the company's bottom line? You don't need to have graduated from Wharton Business School to know the answer to that.
Next year marks the 40th year of deregulation of the airline industry. For those old enough to remember what flying was like 40 years ago, despite admittedly somewhat lower ticket prices today, do you think consumers overall have benefitted from the deregulation? Unless you're paying top dollar for a business or first class ticket, I think the answer is obvious as well.
For things that are non-essential, free market supply and demand works. If a particular sneaker manufacturer wants to charge $200 for a pair of sneakers, consumers have other options. The Internet is too essential to every day life to leave it to the whims of the industry to make the rules. If industry has a free hand to regulate itself, will it choose what is best for consumer or what is best for the company's bottom line? You don't need to have graduated from Wharton Business School to know the answer to that.
Next year marks the 40th year of deregulation of the airline industry. For those old enough to remember what flying was like 40 years ago, despite admittedly somewhat lower ticket prices today, do you think consumers overall have benefitted from the deregulation? Unless you're paying top dollar for a business or first class ticket, I think the answer is obvious as well.
60
Perhaps the states with powerful net constituencies, strong utility regulators, and even their own public broadband networks can establish regional pacts that interlink to make enlightened local policy and equitable, quality broadband the national norm -- without Federal intervention, only under Trump who cannot understand a thing.
Should airlines be regulated again? I'm sure if it was the United incident wouldn't have happened..
If airline deregulation hadn't happened, ticket prices would be much higher and the quality same (or worse). So of course consumers have massively benefited from deregulation; air travel is now much more common and affordable than only to the relative few elite that could afford it (and could also afford to bail out the airlines over and over which were not profitable -- gee, I wonder why?). That was the whole point of deregulation -- democratization which is why Carter oversaw it. But it's a flawed example to compare the airline industry to the cable companies. The former is very sensitive to competition, the latter is too protected by monopolies. They've only started to care as cord cutters opted-out and became a "problem". The cable companies are about as competitive with each other as the sickcare industry is with each other.
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”.....Stop a moment and think. What does regulation mean? Is regulation a requirement that access to the internet be free, equal, and unfettered. Or is regulation what happens when you allow providers to control speed and priority to favor their own content? Which do you think will result in the greater regulation of your use of the internet? I think Pai is actually correct, but he is blathering off the top of his head rather than thinking through the problem carefully.
4
"It's Basic Economics"...No. Going by that logic there's no need to regulate anything because we'll all "get more". So don't even hold restaurants to any health/food safety standards, don't worry about vehicle safety standards either. Also going by this logic we don't need any speed limits, red lights, or road laws either since that's regulation and you'll get more/better driving conditions without them.
5
Spitzer
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
A statement like that has nothing at all to do with economics, basic or otherwise.
Regulation is a key component of any viable economic regimen.
The proof is all around you in our absolute lack of free markets, the burgeoning monopolies that will explode into full bloom under proposed Trump regulations, the life-or-death cutthroat nature of our economy, and the unsustainable levels of inequality which will soon turn us into turn of the century England with Trump's proposed creation of dynasties of wealth and influence.
No, yours is a purely ideological statement. Un-American and unsustainable.
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
A statement like that has nothing at all to do with economics, basic or otherwise.
Regulation is a key component of any viable economic regimen.
The proof is all around you in our absolute lack of free markets, the burgeoning monopolies that will explode into full bloom under proposed Trump regulations, the life-or-death cutthroat nature of our economy, and the unsustainable levels of inequality which will soon turn us into turn of the century England with Trump's proposed creation of dynasties of wealth and influence.
No, yours is a purely ideological statement. Un-American and unsustainable.
6
This administration is sadder than I could have imagined and I imagined a sad sad administration.
22
Now I cant wait to be dragged out of the internet with bloody nose just because some corporation wanted me out!!
11
Because who really uses the internet, anyway.
28
America, your capacity for corruption is as mind boggling as it is disgusting.
16
Yep - the government is firmly in control of big media and lobbyists. Let's do everything we can to promote free competition so that the companies have to work hard to get our business.
1
And the most corrupt presidency is history just keeps rolling along
21
"Police itself?"
39
Ajit Pai may well be one of the most dangerous people in the federal government at this very moment. He must be fought at every turn.
48
A very shrewd observation.
Pai provides no actual evidence that his proposal would make things better for consumers or in any way actually lead to increased competition. He is not doing his job on behalf of the American people.
32
Who cares about the people?
4
No, but he is doing his job on behalf of the telecoms industry, and I'm sure that's what matters to him and his boss...
10
I'm not sure if anyone really sees what is happening with our government. It appears that control of every single service in this country will soon be control by a select group of wealthy people. America is on its way to becoming a country like Russia under Trump's administration where Trump and his cronies will control every single aspect of American culture. Whoever controls the air waves controls all messaging. In essence, this is a way to silence those he does not won't to be heard. All this reminds me of a time in history will a very vile man in Europe use a small group of people, blamed a certain other group for their own woes and became the leader of that country.
8
Most telecom companies are monopolies or oligopolies in their markets. I don't have the ability to switch providers at my home because Charter is the only one that is connected to my house. Therefore, they have incredible pricing power over consumers and are world renowned for having horrific customer service. Of course the government needs to regulate their actions.
Now the telecoms want to stop OTT offerings from competing with their garbage video products and then institute data caps to put their streaming offerings at an advantage to companies that are actually innovating.
I think Pai should go back and learn the "basic economics" to which he refers. Although, my suspicion is that the issue isn't a lack of knowledge, but a desire to enrich the telecom industry at the consumer's expense. I'm sure you'll get a great $500k / year "consulting" job with Comcast at the end of your term, Pai - good job, hope it was worth it.
The ROI / cash on cash returns on edgeouts and new builds are already fine for the cable companies, even if you assume video and phone continue to decline - the idea that this rule causes them to restrict investments in their network is nonsense. The networks are already largely built out except for in low income areas or low density areas where these companies aren't going to build out anyway - and by the way, without regulation against redlining, there would be a lot fewer connected homes so his comment about regulating getting you less is wrong.
Now the telecoms want to stop OTT offerings from competing with their garbage video products and then institute data caps to put their streaming offerings at an advantage to companies that are actually innovating.
I think Pai should go back and learn the "basic economics" to which he refers. Although, my suspicion is that the issue isn't a lack of knowledge, but a desire to enrich the telecom industry at the consumer's expense. I'm sure you'll get a great $500k / year "consulting" job with Comcast at the end of your term, Pai - good job, hope it was worth it.
The ROI / cash on cash returns on edgeouts and new builds are already fine for the cable companies, even if you assume video and phone continue to decline - the idea that this rule causes them to restrict investments in their network is nonsense. The networks are already largely built out except for in low income areas or low density areas where these companies aren't going to build out anyway - and by the way, without regulation against redlining, there would be a lot fewer connected homes so his comment about regulating getting you less is wrong.
10
Monopoly, spying, and selling of personal inforamtion. How can this be stopped?
6
This makes good sense but only if steps are taken to increase completion among ISPs. Comcast has a total lock on Philadelphia. Lets get the DOJ after them.
1
So, AG Sessions will take on Comcast.
Haha, good one.
Haha, good one.
As long as lower tier broadband packages are offered at a reasonable price that are suitable for basic internet functions like paying bills, checking email, applying for jobs, Googling, etc., I don't see a major problem with this guy's new policy although I hope it doesn't go through.
If consumers want special packages and access to entirely optional entertainment like Netflix and what not, perhaps they should pay for it as long as they get something in return (streaming at a higher resolution perhaps).
It could be treated as a "utility plus" type of service. At all "tiers" it'll be functional but if you pay more, you get something more. (Like cable packages and #'s of channels you get).
If consumers want special packages and access to entirely optional entertainment like Netflix and what not, perhaps they should pay for it as long as they get something in return (streaming at a higher resolution perhaps).
It could be treated as a "utility plus" type of service. At all "tiers" it'll be functional but if you pay more, you get something more. (Like cable packages and #'s of channels you get).
1
I look forward to paying $1990 per month for slow internet access from Comcast!
5
Ten years from now it's going to be hard to say which Trump policies have had the most negative effects on health, prosperity and overall functioning of our society, but this is gonna be on the top ten list.
15
I agree. Inmates should run the asylum.
5
Net Neutrality is Fair.
The real reasons to oppose Net Neutrality,....Greed, Power, De Facto Censorship.
The ISP's did not invent the internet. It is NOT theirs to decide what we can access.
They make obscene amounts of money off of you and I. Now they want the power to decide "What" we will be able to access with the money we pay them.
If we follow Mr. Pai's illogic.
If you pay more, you can drive faster on our roads. If you pay less you are put in the molasses lane.
With the internet, you will wait a long time for certain websites to load, even if you are paying for high speed broadband.
Without Net Neutrality the ISP will decide what sites they want you to visit. Even though you pay to receive high speed broadband, the ISP will rob you of the quick access you paid for.
Bad mouthing Net Neutrality is another Trump charade. Another Con Job. Another fat barrel of pork for his cronies that you and I will be paying for,..for a long, long time. Especially in the content we will never see and the content the honcho's at the ISP don't want you to see.
The real reasons to oppose Net Neutrality,....Greed, Power, De Facto Censorship.
The ISP's did not invent the internet. It is NOT theirs to decide what we can access.
They make obscene amounts of money off of you and I. Now they want the power to decide "What" we will be able to access with the money we pay them.
If we follow Mr. Pai's illogic.
If you pay more, you can drive faster on our roads. If you pay less you are put in the molasses lane.
With the internet, you will wait a long time for certain websites to load, even if you are paying for high speed broadband.
Without Net Neutrality the ISP will decide what sites they want you to visit. Even though you pay to receive high speed broadband, the ISP will rob you of the quick access you paid for.
Bad mouthing Net Neutrality is another Trump charade. Another Con Job. Another fat barrel of pork for his cronies that you and I will be paying for,..for a long, long time. Especially in the content we will never see and the content the honcho's at the ISP don't want you to see.
42
This includes easy access to sites like Netflix too because these cable companies that control a huge share of the ISP market want you to be FORCED to pay them to go back to outdated cable.
1
In the current world, I believe that data is a utility the same as water, electricity, and heat. The reason these items/commodities are regulated is that we citizens consider them essential. I would make the argument, that information/data falls into the same category now. As an Engineer, I am also puzzled why being compared to a utility is a negative. We have private power companies that invest millions into infrastructure, deliver excellent and reliable services all while returning money to their shareholders. As far as regulations, all we ask as citizens is for the utilities to show why costs are justified. Profits are acknowledged as part of plan and we all live happily together. In general utilities don't waste millions on advertising, nor have celebrity CEO types who get to play master of the universe. I ask....what is wrong with this model?
28
Absolute madness. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
16
The robber barons are in charge, extracting rights and treasure from the little guy on behalf of oligarchs. This is the nation we are becoming under Trump, to our shame.
15
We have been there before – self rule – think financial sector 2008. You know what to do because the FCC has tried this before and been defeated. Write and more effectively call your Congressional representatives; these people still have to face the informed voters so protest can matter.
14
“It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.” A gross oversimplification (as an economist). Take a look at the rest of the world. Typically they regulate to protect consumers from the monopoly abuses that will result from Mr Pai's approach. Republicans continually argue as if perfect competition rules in every market whereas the reality is that, largely thanks to lax enforcement of existing antitrust legislation, there has been more and more concentration of power and less and less protection for consumers
26
This is all part of Trump's sick laissez faire capitalist agenda. Ajit was appointed to be Chairman/head of the FCC because he falls in line with Trumps's Agenda. Ajit used to be an attorney for Verizon Wireless (the company that until recently wanted to charge a painful 10 dollars a Gigabyte for mobile data).
The people behind stuff like this know it's not a good deal for the average everyday American, and they don't care. This is about making sure the super rich and giant corporations get even more at the expense of the middle class and everyone else.
Trump's agenda to put it bluntly is, reduce taxes on the super rich, deregulate big businesses so they can charge you even more for things that are vitally important to everyday life like internet access, and lastly sell off as many Federal lands as possible to private industry even if that hurts the environment long term.
Does this make any long term sense? Of course not, it wasn't meant to make sense for everyday Americans. Anytime someone is upset about it though, all you have to do is wave the, "FREE market and less regulations are always better magic wand", and that makes it better for everyone, even you!
The people behind stuff like this know it's not a good deal for the average everyday American, and they don't care. This is about making sure the super rich and giant corporations get even more at the expense of the middle class and everyone else.
Trump's agenda to put it bluntly is, reduce taxes on the super rich, deregulate big businesses so they can charge you even more for things that are vitally important to everyday life like internet access, and lastly sell off as many Federal lands as possible to private industry even if that hurts the environment long term.
Does this make any long term sense? Of course not, it wasn't meant to make sense for everyday Americans. Anytime someone is upset about it though, all you have to do is wave the, "FREE market and less regulations are always better magic wand", and that makes it better for everyone, even you!
Clearly, then, the answer is stronger anti-trust enforcement. That's what this editorial should be about!
1
The one rule that needs to be eliminated is the one that let's states prohibit municipalities from building their own Internet infrastructure for their citizens
76
That's because the monopolists can't handle the competition.
4
If I'm not mistaken, those laws that restrict municipalities from building their own cheaper, better networks are state, not federal laws.
This is the least that can be done should net neutrality be emasculated! There is the story of a small manufacturing business just outside of Wilson, North Carolina that was about to lose access to decent high speed service needed for the company to function precisely because of such laws that was passed that would prevent the municipally owned co-op from continuing to extend its service area just outside of the city. The allowing of internet co-ops will be the only lifeline for under-served businesses and households. It would also be an escape from the big, newly deregulated ISP from being exploited or poorly served.
I, like most people in the US, have access to one singular high speed broadband internet provider. A relatively small subset of us may have one additional alternative. So Pai's plan effectively permits a monopoly or, at best, a duopoly (which honest economists will tell you is not a competitive market and essentially exhibits the same behavior as a monopoly) to dictate to me, the captive customer, what I will have access to and at what price and speed. Mr. Pai's plan also will permit these monopolists to not only own the distribution pipe but to effectively "own" all the content that uses that pipe by allowing it to formulate its own content and favor or disfavor competing content at its whim. Mr. Pai creates the ultimate conflict of interest and calls it "freedom". If he isn't receiving payments now via the "revolving door" he was visited upon us, he most certainly will when he inevitably returns from whence he came -- the telecom industry. That, my friends, is textbook -- but legal -- corruption. Mr. Trump's five year "ban" on that is illusory. It carries no weight or legal sanction for those who violate it.
71
Corpocratic rule at its finest.
34
This would be a COMPLETE disaster. As any consumer knows (didn't we used to be called 'citizens'?) internet service providers have a near or clear monopoly on access to the internet. If you're lucky you have 2 choices- your cable provider or telephone provider. And current rules properly treat them as the monopolies they are- granted that monopoly status by local government entities who insure the monopoly doesn't fleece their 'citizens'. Be aware the Trump administration has a very clear understanding of the ability of the internet to work against them. And it IS possible to 'turn off' the internet.
32
I am not quite responsive to the rollbacks on net neutrality. The possibility of favorable speeds and slowdowns on certain services and devices, or the social media applications becoming their own ISPs seems vaguely real now. However, most competitive industries have consumer review organizations to assure ethical standards. News of Verizon or Comcast slowing speeds on Netflix or video game servers would spark more outrage---an opposing service will bury the competition.
Oh, Christian, you poor, sad man.
You remind me of the brave academics who once believed communism held hope for the lesser among us. Then they saw the vile perversion of that idea by the ever-corrupt Russians.
Somehow, you've taken a big cup of capitalist Kool-Aid, and I fear you're in for heartbreak.
It's unfortunate you live in the United States, because nowhere in all the universe have the ideas and the potential of capitalism been as deeply perverted, even completely abandoned, by dishonorable and talentless people whose one skill is shouting "CAPITALISM!" every few minutes.
People like our American capitalists, or like Pai, have no honor, no understanding of markets or economics, or ethical treatment of customers or workers. They're wee, little guys with one interest in life: get more now.
There is not one chance this will revive competition in the market. Not one chance consumers will benefit in any way. And no chance at all the people making and benefiting from decisions like this care even a little bit about you or your interests. You're a part of their money machine is all, and if you don't behave accordingly they'll just cut you off.
As for your "opposing service", even such a thing could weather the now nearly impenetrable gauntlet Mr. Pai is building, once they 'bury the competition', they'll begin raising rates and cutting service, too.
American capitalism is not capitalism. Our markets are not free. Our politicians like it like that.
You remind me of the brave academics who once believed communism held hope for the lesser among us. Then they saw the vile perversion of that idea by the ever-corrupt Russians.
Somehow, you've taken a big cup of capitalist Kool-Aid, and I fear you're in for heartbreak.
It's unfortunate you live in the United States, because nowhere in all the universe have the ideas and the potential of capitalism been as deeply perverted, even completely abandoned, by dishonorable and talentless people whose one skill is shouting "CAPITALISM!" every few minutes.
People like our American capitalists, or like Pai, have no honor, no understanding of markets or economics, or ethical treatment of customers or workers. They're wee, little guys with one interest in life: get more now.
There is not one chance this will revive competition in the market. Not one chance consumers will benefit in any way. And no chance at all the people making and benefiting from decisions like this care even a little bit about you or your interests. You're a part of their money machine is all, and if you don't behave accordingly they'll just cut you off.
As for your "opposing service", even such a thing could weather the now nearly impenetrable gauntlet Mr. Pai is building, once they 'bury the competition', they'll begin raising rates and cutting service, too.
American capitalism is not capitalism. Our markets are not free. Our politicians like it like that.
Another Lying Liar, brought to you by DJT. The notion that this will increase options for consumers, when many communities around the country award franchise monopolies to land based internet carriers, is a blatant falsehood. But, what else is new with this den of thieves?
76
Very frightening because it give a select few control of disseminating
information. Another step toward an oligarchy.
information. Another step toward an oligarchy.
58
There was a mass movement to support net neutrality three years ago.
Now there needs to be a mass movement to save it.
And the tech-oriented people who made that first mass movement need to vote as if they actually meant it -- in 2018, in 2020, and until the Republican Party listens to them.
Now there needs to be a mass movement to save it.
And the tech-oriented people who made that first mass movement need to vote as if they actually meant it -- in 2018, in 2020, and until the Republican Party listens to them.
120
Net neutrality sounds like a good idea, but what it did in reality was make Google, Netflix and Amazon able to increase their profits and for cable providers and telecoms to reduce their profits. The ultimate in Democrat supporters buying profits from the government for pennies on the dollar.
The first enforcement action the FCC took was to question whether it was legal for AT&T to offer free streaming of DirecTV as anticompetitive. The first thing competitors did was offer free streaming of Amazon or Netflix. Where exactly is the hurt to consumers in a free market?' If you want a cheap cellphone, you buy one with phone and limited texting. If you want to stream video on your phone, you buy a more expensive plan and pick the carrier who has the streaming provider you prefer.
Thee was never a mass movement for the Obama regulations. There was a paid campaign by the corporatists who benefited from being chosen by the government as winners.
You would be hard pressed to point to a single offense on the part of the "utility" isps where they denied to carry any content. The apparent throttling that occurred six or seven years ago was not taking place during the last mile of transmission by the isps. The apparent throttling was taking place at the locations where the providers were dumping streaming video into isps that did not have sufficient capacity and for which Netflix, Amazon and Google weren't willing to pay for increased volume.
The first enforcement action the FCC took was to question whether it was legal for AT&T to offer free streaming of DirecTV as anticompetitive. The first thing competitors did was offer free streaming of Amazon or Netflix. Where exactly is the hurt to consumers in a free market?' If you want a cheap cellphone, you buy one with phone and limited texting. If you want to stream video on your phone, you buy a more expensive plan and pick the carrier who has the streaming provider you prefer.
Thee was never a mass movement for the Obama regulations. There was a paid campaign by the corporatists who benefited from being chosen by the government as winners.
You would be hard pressed to point to a single offense on the part of the "utility" isps where they denied to carry any content. The apparent throttling that occurred six or seven years ago was not taking place during the last mile of transmission by the isps. The apparent throttling was taking place at the locations where the providers were dumping streaming video into isps that did not have sufficient capacity and for which Netflix, Amazon and Google weren't willing to pay for increased volume.
I don't think you understand what is happening. When AT&T charges DirectTv for 'no charge' video, it is moving money from the right pocket to the left pocket. When AT&T charges Netflex for 'no charge' video, Netflex has cost and AT&T has revenue. So from AT&T's point of view, DirectTv can send you video at no cost but Netflex has a cost that will eventually cost their customers. That is the net neutrality issue. I pay AT&T a lot for internet access and I should get access to all internet services without the services incurring additional costs. AT&T should not be able to also charge the provider who pays _their_ ISP for internet access.
Note that until Netflex and others were willing to pay ISPs, the ISPs were refusing to upgrade their back-end interconnects. That is why some years ago Netflex and other provider's data was being throttled. The ISP's back-end interconnect points were saturated while to backbone's matching interconnect points had been upgraded. The slowdown was a strategy to get the service providers to pay the ISPs money. The ISPs control access to the consumer and they want lots of money from the service providers in addition to their customers. Note that new and small service providers will not have the resources to pay the ISPs and will suffer because of it.
Note that until Netflex and others were willing to pay ISPs, the ISPs were refusing to upgrade their back-end interconnects. That is why some years ago Netflex and other provider's data was being throttled. The ISP's back-end interconnect points were saturated while to backbone's matching interconnect points had been upgraded. The slowdown was a strategy to get the service providers to pay the ISPs money. The ISPs control access to the consumer and they want lots of money from the service providers in addition to their customers. Note that new and small service providers will not have the resources to pay the ISPs and will suffer because of it.
3
So we have already concentrated capital in the hands of the 1%.
Mr. Pai will ensure control of information in those hands.
I guess if Mr. Pruitt can ensure control of clean air and water for our elite friends, our work here will be done.
Mr. Pai will ensure control of information in those hands.
I guess if Mr. Pruitt can ensure control of clean air and water for our elite friends, our work here will be done.
45
" The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
Spoken like a man who hasn't had to travel in coach class within the last 20 years.
Spoken like a man who hasn't had to travel in coach class within the last 20 years.
105