Since the companies are now getting money for selling my browsing history, they should lower rates. They should split the profits, right?
2
Providers such as AT&T and Verizon should not "own the pipes" as the article described. Broadband infrastructure, wired and wireless, should be maintained, expanded and administered as a nonprofit utility, available to all at nominal pricing. Let companies compete on the quality of their work within the internet rather than holding the keys and creating barriers to fundamental internet access.
3
I predict we'll be limited to choosing only Trump-branded (gold plated, marble trimmed) internet access at super-premium prices by the end of his first (only?) term. It's the only service that's compatible with our new Trump-branded computers and Ivanka-phones.
The carrier hidden agenda is no carrier wants to simply deliver high quality Internet service - they ALL want to be both sole providers of content on top of their own largely monopolistic communications networks. Comcast worries that if net neutrality happens, Netflix will continue to grow as customers increasingly abandon bundled cable TV. ATT&T and Verizon crave delivering higher value content in addition to their core communications services.
And sadly - they do bad jobs being what they are not. Comcast is really a poor communications carrier (though sadly the only one many of us can get) and AT&T and Verizon are really poor content providers.
They want to use their monopoly control of content and/or transport to control competition.
And sadly - they do bad jobs being what they are not. Comcast is really a poor communications carrier (though sadly the only one many of us can get) and AT&T and Verizon are really poor content providers.
They want to use their monopoly control of content and/or transport to control competition.
A friendly fellow commentator correctly pointed out that internet companies like Netflix and Amazon already pay ISPs for expedient delivery of services. This payment is similar to the payment all users make to ISPs. You pay more for faster service.
There exists a legitimate justification in this rational. Why should Netflix be allowed to consume a maximum amount of bandwidth without paying any additional service fee? Would you allow DHL to gridlock the interstate free of charge? What about ma and pop that just want to get to their doctor's appointment?
There's truth here but there also exists a problem. Roads are indifferent to the purposes to which their used. Same with electricity. The company powering your home doesn't care whether you plug in a lamp or a microwave. They just clock the juice and send you a bill. This is not true with ISPs. They are actively competing in the same business market as streaming services.
I wouldn't mind Verizon charging Netflix more because they consume more. However, that's not the case. Telecoms are charging competitors more in order to undermine the opposition and promote their own less desirable product.
Small detail. Big Difference.
There exists a legitimate justification in this rational. Why should Netflix be allowed to consume a maximum amount of bandwidth without paying any additional service fee? Would you allow DHL to gridlock the interstate free of charge? What about ma and pop that just want to get to their doctor's appointment?
There's truth here but there also exists a problem. Roads are indifferent to the purposes to which their used. Same with electricity. The company powering your home doesn't care whether you plug in a lamp or a microwave. They just clock the juice and send you a bill. This is not true with ISPs. They are actively competing in the same business market as streaming services.
I wouldn't mind Verizon charging Netflix more because they consume more. However, that's not the case. Telecoms are charging competitors more in order to undermine the opposition and promote their own less desirable product.
Small detail. Big Difference.
6
When it's one group of businesses demanding another group of businesses be regulated, you know that consumers will get shafted.
2
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about net neutrality, but it's really very simple: should your internet service provider (e.g. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T), which you are already paying for internet service, be allowed to slow down or block traffic from internet content companies (Google, Netflix, online news sites) that refuse to pay them a kickback? Note that most areas only have one or two dominant internet service providers, so you have little leverage over them, which is why their service is so typically awful.
Cast in clear terms like this, I'd say the answer is obvious.
Cast in clear terms like this, I'd say the answer is obvious.
1
Where's John Oliver when you need him?
1
If content providers aren't charged for the amount of bandwidth they consume, they will continue to consume more and more without a care for how their consumption damages the experience of all users on the Internet. It's called the tragedy of the commons. It forces service providers to expand the supply of bandwidth and charge more and more for faster and faster connections because the slower connections no longer serve. Let capitalism do it's job and match our need for bandwidth with the appropriate supply. Kill net neutrality and the free-loaders who take advantage of it.
1
The cable operators have never wanted to be just a "dumb pipe." They know that content and services and mining and selling users preferences is the revenue stream. The argument that it hasn't happened is disingenuous. Until the advent of deep packet inspection and the ability to do it in real time, the only approach was to limit the amount of data downloaded in a month or similar. When Comcast tried slowing down data rates for certain content--and got caught by consumer groups--they agreed to stop under the old guideline regime. Also remember that your state of the art, streaming capable TV won't work on your cable system. Much of the programming you've been extorted into buying through retransmission consent agreements is losing its value -- ESPN for instance. By getting competitors to pay to deliver their content, it's anew revenue stream. And what if the only "news" services carried are those friendly to the "regime"? Getting rid of net neutrality is the green light for throttling free speech and content innovation.
2
And yet again we have the con man in chief sticking it to his minions.
1
"only enrich broadband providers..."?
Pretty much ALL Trump executive orders, decrees, and so-called "policies can be characterized as designed to:
"ONLY ENRICH... [fill in the blank!]"
Pretty much ALL Trump executive orders, decrees, and so-called "policies can be characterized as designed to:
"ONLY ENRICH... [fill in the blank!]"
1
Deregulation is great for business and always drains more money form our pockets and generally results in a decline in services.
Promoting the interests of plutocrats seems to be the only priority of this administration. Cutting taxes on the wealthy who have no need, ending the estate tax that only affects multimillionaires are part and parcel. Only with these priorities does ending Net Neutrality make any rational sense.
A packet is a packet is a packet regardless of where it originates and what it's destination is. A simple and effective definition of net neutrality. Without it, the internet as we know it will die.
2
Only fools would kill the goose that lays golden eggs, but the FCC has always been run by numbskulls and who shill for predatory forces in media.
'Did Trump voters really vote for higher cable bills?" Of course they did -- they all knowingly voted for a candidate who didn't want the best for them or the country.
The rest of the developed world has cheaper, faster internet. U.S companies and their lap dog, our government, are always scheming to reduce our choices, freedoms and transfer our resources to them. Net neutrality is a threat to the monolpy of our internet providers and their strangle hold on us. It's funny how conservatives are always ready to let companies run wild but think the government needs to step in and prop up their monopolies and restrict our options. As usual, companies are real people and real people are just pawns.
Another Trump Nail in our coffin.
If I pay for a high-speed network, I should get the same high-speed for all the content that *I* choose, not what Comcast or Verizon chooses. We need regulation here to avoid gouging and censorship (via slowing down the content that I choose) by these near-monopolies.
2
Only all we can do is RESIST. That is the best thing to do.
As AT&T buys Time Warner and becomes a network and content provider, eliminating Net Neutrality will enable AT&T to give preferential bandwidth and speed to its own services while choking or charging usurious rates to independent content providers. People need to speak up now... or your internet streaming content will eventually be controlled by a handful of behemoth corporations... not necessary interested in "Freedom of speech".
1
Tim, you got it wrong by characterizing this as a pure cash grab by telcoms. Streaming is awesome, and it is the future; a fair and open internet is critical to it's success, and it deserves common sense protections. But streaming has also has costs; the tech has multiplied internet traffic on telcom pipes many times over, and expanding and maintaining working pipes for this demand spike doesn't happen without additional capital. One can argue about the right balance of who should bear the cost (consumers, telcoms, streaming companies, government)—but these pipes are mostly private assets, built, operated and maintained with private capital. It's fair for telcoms to make a reasonable profit margin on their use; what is not fair is for consumers to expect to consume far more bandwidth without paying for what they use, or for gov't to intervene and depress costs by fiat. When consumers use more electricity, what happens? Their bill goes up. It's a perversion of a functioning capitalist economy to expect otherwise from similarly regulated "utilities."
One more nit: high cable bills are mostly due to channel bundling and premium broadcast redistribution deals that content cartels pass on to consumers. As ESPN demonstrated yesterday, these unsustainable dynamics are now fraying in favor of a streaming-centric approach. While bundling of channels and services can constrain choice, it's short-sighted to whine about high costs and blame them on insufficient regulation of broadband.
One more nit: high cable bills are mostly due to channel bundling and premium broadcast redistribution deals that content cartels pass on to consumers. As ESPN demonstrated yesterday, these unsustainable dynamics are now fraying in favor of a streaming-centric approach. While bundling of channels and services can constrain choice, it's short-sighted to whine about high costs and blame them on insufficient regulation of broadband.
3
Japan has free internet exchanger at double the speed of FIOS.
The internet is the most important new infrastructure. We s should be using tax dollars to provide high speed internet to everyone.
This country is knocked and dining itself into into competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world on every front.
Or internet is sore and spotty, and this will make it worse.
China is building mag lev rail, and we are letting infrastructure fall apart.
Every other industrialized country has universal healthcare at half the cost.
We skimp on schools for the poor so we can have the largest prison population per capita.
We have great colleges, but our children have to go into debt to go to them.
We invented solar panels, but other countries are going to nearly free renewable energy, with China building most of the panels, while we spend trillions on wars for big oil.
We are putting or country into a downward spiral so billionaires can have extra billions. It's insane.
Verizon's profits are bid enough.
Stop the madness.
The internet is the most important new infrastructure. We s should be using tax dollars to provide high speed internet to everyone.
This country is knocked and dining itself into into competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world on every front.
Or internet is sore and spotty, and this will make it worse.
China is building mag lev rail, and we are letting infrastructure fall apart.
Every other industrialized country has universal healthcare at half the cost.
We skimp on schools for the poor so we can have the largest prison population per capita.
We have great colleges, but our children have to go into debt to go to them.
We invented solar panels, but other countries are going to nearly free renewable energy, with China building most of the panels, while we spend trillions on wars for big oil.
We are putting or country into a downward spiral so billionaires can have extra billions. It's insane.
Verizon's profits are bid enough.
Stop the madness.
2
Americans have the slowest yet most expensive internet in the world. Literally. One has a hard time believing this is from lack of profits, when our better regulated neighbors do so much more with so much less.
People who pay attention know that most cable is over internet now. A second price of inferior analogue infrastructure is pointless when cable carriers have remade themselves into ISPs. The cable bill is for broadband internet, even when you don't have TV shows in the bill.
People who pay attention know that most cable is over internet now. A second price of inferior analogue infrastructure is pointless when cable carriers have remade themselves into ISPs. The cable bill is for broadband internet, even when you don't have TV shows in the bill.
1
As a network architect, that has to figure out how to build more networks, with limited funds, what is playing out in the argument over net neutrality is this:
It costs money to build more bandwidth. Net neutrality boosts total traffic, and that forces ISP's to build out their broadband "edge network".
Take away that requirement, and ISP's can use data caps, prioritization, walled garden, "express service", tiered service, etc. to avoid or delay investment in infrastructure. There is still a cost, however. To do all that packet manipulation, you have to add equipment that tracks, inspects, logs, and analyzes the content of packets. That last bit is deep packet inspection.
ISP's want to pay for that by analyzing users internet data and selling customer data to other companies. That's why Mr Pai is pushing for the "right" of ISP's to track user behavior.
All of Mr Pai's actions so far go straight to boosting the profitability of ISP's,
and the expense of their customers.
It costs money to build more bandwidth. Net neutrality boosts total traffic, and that forces ISP's to build out their broadband "edge network".
Take away that requirement, and ISP's can use data caps, prioritization, walled garden, "express service", tiered service, etc. to avoid or delay investment in infrastructure. There is still a cost, however. To do all that packet manipulation, you have to add equipment that tracks, inspects, logs, and analyzes the content of packets. That last bit is deep packet inspection.
ISP's want to pay for that by analyzing users internet data and selling customer data to other companies. That's why Mr Pai is pushing for the "right" of ISP's to track user behavior.
All of Mr Pai's actions so far go straight to boosting the profitability of ISP's,
and the expense of their customers.
27
Yes, indeed, the DJT fix is in with greater redistribution of wealth to the top one percent income group. #so sad.
6
If net neutrality is discarded by the Trump administration, the American Public needs to demand a public non-profit internet infrastructure, since our information, our safety, our healthcare, our finances, and our rights as citizens are dependent on unfettered access.
7
In addition to threatening net neutrality, there are other measures that the now Republican dominated FCC, the freeze on low income program for assistance on Internet connectivity, browser history privacy, and alternative set-top electronics for cable TV and other cable-based services subscribers. The very least it could do is to block state law prohibitions of cities and counties from being allowed to build county and municipality owned and operated Internet ISP's. Homeowners and business denied adequate internet services are severely disadvantaged in that property values are negatively affected, and attractiveness for business to invest and locate are degraded. Lack of internet services are already hurting badly school children in the ability to receive home assignments and means of being able to submit completed assignments. Is this what populism is supposed to be, Mr. Trump?
6
Sorry but if "progressives" could fix things, they had ample opportunity under Obama. The reality is that with excessive regulations "progressives" are more adept at breaking things than fixing them.
1
It would be nice if you could cite some examples to support your statement. Just exactly what are the excessive regulations you are talking about? Or are you just mouthing something you saw in the conservative media? Facts. Give us some facts. Facts matter.
3
Due to the monopolies Americans already get charged way too much to connect to the internet. And at a very low speed at that. US has one of most expensive Internet per byte and slowest deployed network as it is, they want to make it worse.
But this shouldn't come as a surprise. Neo-liberal capitalists ruin everything of merit, including the Net.
There is no compelling reason to permit a handful of cartel-like Internet Service Providers to manipulate information. This should be an issue on which all sensible people on both sides of the political spectrum should agree on.
But in a country that's been fed a constant diet of "private is more efficient than public", "greed is good", "too much red tape stifles business", and where the Magic Market Fairy will fix everything with a wave of her wand, it is only a question of time until the crowd that has taken over the US government and is all about making more money for corporations will get what they want and screw the average Joe/Jane
American style, rigged market capitalism is the worst path to consumer choice.
I'm all for slowing internet traffic - for the FCC, for Trump's White House cabinet and any Congressional member who supports this or any other Anti-People nefarious activities.
But this shouldn't come as a surprise. Neo-liberal capitalists ruin everything of merit, including the Net.
There is no compelling reason to permit a handful of cartel-like Internet Service Providers to manipulate information. This should be an issue on which all sensible people on both sides of the political spectrum should agree on.
But in a country that's been fed a constant diet of "private is more efficient than public", "greed is good", "too much red tape stifles business", and where the Magic Market Fairy will fix everything with a wave of her wand, it is only a question of time until the crowd that has taken over the US government and is all about making more money for corporations will get what they want and screw the average Joe/Jane
American style, rigged market capitalism is the worst path to consumer choice.
I'm all for slowing internet traffic - for the FCC, for Trump's White House cabinet and any Congressional member who supports this or any other Anti-People nefarious activities.
10
So what can we do about it?? The true danger of Trump is what he and his appointees can do on their own without Congress. Your piece is worth little without alternatives.
1
Pick up the phone and call the FCC, your Congresspeople, and your governors office. You can participate and let your voice be heard. It's called American government.
At our lake house 55 miles north of Columbus, our community is held hostage to Directv, Century Link internet and does Dish still exist?
Our fast lane is between 5-8 mbps. That occurs when the kids go to bed and before they wake up for school, roughly 3:00a.m. to 6:00 am. Otherwise it is 0.5-3.5. Complain all you want, it isn't changing. For that your internet bill is $80 a month plus 30% taxes and fees unless you can whine to customer service and get that $80 knocked down to $50 with a LONG contract. Most people are paying well above $250 a month for directv, and despite their ads, you will not pay under $120. Huge monthly costs here in the middle of Trumpland with no competition likely to come on board to lower the costs unless Trump decides his people are worth an investment in fiber. Without government involvement, companies will continue to raise prices beyond what is reasonable and slow us down as they add more customers. When will Trump get that just like him, businesses are only interested in emptying my pockets to fill theirs.
Our fast lane is between 5-8 mbps. That occurs when the kids go to bed and before they wake up for school, roughly 3:00a.m. to 6:00 am. Otherwise it is 0.5-3.5. Complain all you want, it isn't changing. For that your internet bill is $80 a month plus 30% taxes and fees unless you can whine to customer service and get that $80 knocked down to $50 with a LONG contract. Most people are paying well above $250 a month for directv, and despite their ads, you will not pay under $120. Huge monthly costs here in the middle of Trumpland with no competition likely to come on board to lower the costs unless Trump decides his people are worth an investment in fiber. Without government involvement, companies will continue to raise prices beyond what is reasonable and slow us down as they add more customers. When will Trump get that just like him, businesses are only interested in emptying my pockets to fill theirs.
3
And here I refuse to pay $30 extra for cable in addition to the $30 for internet (100/10). It really puts things into perspective. Well, to be fair you have higher wages in the US so that offsets it a bit.
What basis does anyone have to trust the motives and business of the cable industry? None!
2
I have yet to see the benefits of the free market trickle down to my cable/phone/internet bill where I have few if any choices of providers.
5
Further proof that access to the internet needs to be treated as a necessity of modern life and those supplying it need to be regulated more closely to give start ups a chance and to make real improvements rather than selling vaporware and ducking responsibility when cities or customers complain that what is being delivered isn't what was sold.
8
Can someone give me a good reason why the internet should be regulated as a public utility? Perhaps if the government wasn't so content to allow ISPs to remain in their current state of oligopoly, we'd have less of an issue with ISPs throttling the network speed. But then again, there are several other factors at play here: do we really want the government to have complete regulatory authority over information, and the flow of it to the citizens? Has no one thought about the dangers to freedoms and the conflict of interest that would produce? And we already know that the private sector can and does handle the capital costs of this industry, so there's no reason to consider ISP as a public utility like Electrical Power. There is little risk of natural monopolies arising. Basically, the only reason anyone has come up with so far to enforce "Net Neutrality" is "We've created and enforced these oligopolies, we don't like what they're doing, so we're gonna take it all away from them and keep the power for ourselves." Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the integrity of information, or our government.
1
Don't we already pay the highest internet fees in the world? Europe and other nations pay far less for their internet. Is that still true?
6
i was one of the four million who wrote to the FCC in support of net neutrality. I wrote both an initial letter and a reply letter. I also read the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association submission to the FCC, which ran some 90 pages, while we ordinary folks were instructed to be brief. The NCTA offered the tired old pablum that net neutrality rules would reduce competition and stifle innovation. As I pointed out, the cable industry had itself been trying to reduce competition by pushing for state laws opposing municipal networks. I also pointed out that, far as I know, there is nothing that would prevent innovation to provide better and more efficient service at a lower cost. If common carrier status prevents the Corporate Crybabies from devising new ways to enrich themselves by fleecing their customers, then I say, Bring it on! Not all innovation is beneficial: clever criminals can devise innovative ways to commit crimes.
It is frustrating that we now have to fight this battle again.
Telecommunications Association submission to the FCC, which ran some 90 pages, while we ordinary folks were instructed to be brief. The NCTA offered the tired old pablum that net neutrality rules would reduce competition and stifle innovation. As I pointed out, the cable industry had itself been trying to reduce competition by pushing for state laws opposing municipal networks. I also pointed out that, far as I know, there is nothing that would prevent innovation to provide better and more efficient service at a lower cost. If common carrier status prevents the Corporate Crybabies from devising new ways to enrich themselves by fleecing their customers, then I say, Bring it on! Not all innovation is beneficial: clever criminals can devise innovative ways to commit crimes.
It is frustrating that we now have to fight this battle again.
14
Pai is the perfect example of 'regulatory capture': he is totally beholden to the industry he is there to regulate. Soon, under his misguided policy, we will be paying $200 for dial up speeds as ISPs consolidate further and strangle competition and access. Meanwhile the rest of the world will move to 1G download speeds as a minimum of service. This is an outrage.
14
In my opinion as an industry analyst, Prof. Wu's arguments are as misinformed and fallacious as Mr. Pai's.
The real problem is not "net neutrality". It is whether broadband providers are regulated as Common Carriers (not Utilities; there is a difference, look it up) under Title II of the Communications act, or as information providers, like Google and Netflix. Classic anti-trust doctrine would indicate the former. They are a natural monopoly, because they control a bottleneck facility (look it up): cables placed on public rights of way and licensed radio spectrum. It is usually impractical to duplicate that infrastructure. They are incented to use their control to disadvantage competitors. Therefore, regulation must substitute for competitive discipline or else competition will be stifled. Competition is presumed to be good for consumers.
Of course, no business wants regulatory constraints on their activities, regardless of whether they are inclined toward abusive practices. Title II was the only legal authority for the Net Neutrality rules. It brings with it a lot of baggage, some real, some imaginary.
Left alone, I doubt that any of the broadband providers would blatantly violate net neutrality principles (thus Pai's "voluntary" commitments), for reasons too detailed to explain here. The real issue is accountability, both for potential anti-competitive and anti-consumer activities. They reject it; their competitors and the public clamor for it. FCC should retain it.
The real problem is not "net neutrality". It is whether broadband providers are regulated as Common Carriers (not Utilities; there is a difference, look it up) under Title II of the Communications act, or as information providers, like Google and Netflix. Classic anti-trust doctrine would indicate the former. They are a natural monopoly, because they control a bottleneck facility (look it up): cables placed on public rights of way and licensed radio spectrum. It is usually impractical to duplicate that infrastructure. They are incented to use their control to disadvantage competitors. Therefore, regulation must substitute for competitive discipline or else competition will be stifled. Competition is presumed to be good for consumers.
Of course, no business wants regulatory constraints on their activities, regardless of whether they are inclined toward abusive practices. Title II was the only legal authority for the Net Neutrality rules. It brings with it a lot of baggage, some real, some imaginary.
Left alone, I doubt that any of the broadband providers would blatantly violate net neutrality principles (thus Pai's "voluntary" commitments), for reasons too detailed to explain here. The real issue is accountability, both for potential anti-competitive and anti-consumer activities. They reject it; their competitors and the public clamor for it. FCC should retain it.
2
This is a giveaway to broadband service providers. But they should be careful what they wish for. Compared to the market caps of Google, Amazon and Netflix, Verizon, Spectrum, and Comcast might be subsumed should any of the first three decide to get into providing broadband access.
Google has produced its own phone. What if they follow it up by providing its own networ, instead of selling (temporary) exclusive access through Verizon?
Google has produced its own phone. What if they follow it up by providing its own networ, instead of selling (temporary) exclusive access through Verizon?
3
In addition to the probability of higher costs for internet consumers, I see this as a real threat of government surveillance that will not be covert.
1
Of course, Donald Trump's supporters want Net Neutrality. However, most of them are not well informed on anything, including this issue. Most of them will not object to something they are ignorant of.
3
No, informed Americans want net neutrality. In fact, the internet needs to be a public utility. It is now an amusement, it's a nessecity.
1
Trump was voted in on feelings of economic insecurity, anger and helplessness. Not on any of the "executive orders" he has been signing.
How do we stop this man?
How do we stop this man?
Well, Gee, suppose that they shut down all racist, religious, bogus, inflammatory, and nutsy Websites? That would be a great start.
1
Another plan by the Trump administration to screw the citizens of this country and fill the pockets of the corporations.
And yet the Trump voters still support him. That's what baffles me. How do you keep making excuses for this train wreck of a president? He's going out of his way to take every benefit we receive as an American and put a higher price tag on it. When is enough, enough?
And yet the Trump voters still support him. That's what baffles me. How do you keep making excuses for this train wreck of a president? He's going out of his way to take every benefit we receive as an American and put a higher price tag on it. When is enough, enough?
4
"Streaming, after all, is a cheaper and better form of television. For that reason, it is something the cable industry would not have allowed to thrive had it been left to its own devices."
I don't understand this point. Streaming of video programming is only possible because the cable industry's facilities have been upgraded and equipped to enable high definition Internet transmissions. If the industry did not want to allow the development of Internet competition to its traditional cable television service, why would it have invested to make such competition possible? That investment had absolutely nothing to do with any net neutrality rules. More likely, the industry believed that streaming of video programming would make its Internet access service more attractive and valuable to consumers, even if such streaming became, for some customers, an alternative -- rather than a complement -- to its cable service.
I don't understand this point. Streaming of video programming is only possible because the cable industry's facilities have been upgraded and equipped to enable high definition Internet transmissions. If the industry did not want to allow the development of Internet competition to its traditional cable television service, why would it have invested to make such competition possible? That investment had absolutely nothing to do with any net neutrality rules. More likely, the industry believed that streaming of video programming would make its Internet access service more attractive and valuable to consumers, even if such streaming became, for some customers, an alternative -- rather than a complement -- to its cable service.
Ok, I'm dumb... but in what universe is streaming tv cheaper than grabbing a signal out of. air for free, or accessing the media via a cable or satellite service sold monthly, and not by the byte.
the model the pipe providers wish to use sounds more like the gas company, billing for the amount you use, when you have no alternative competitor and are somethig of a captive customer. of course, you could opt to freeze in the winter, nut that's not a reasonable alternative for most people.
the plan is simple price gouging, with the main objective being o boost share value by showing a more enticing revenue stream.
and this benefits.... ?
the model the pipe providers wish to use sounds more like the gas company, billing for the amount you use, when you have no alternative competitor and are somethig of a captive customer. of course, you could opt to freeze in the winter, nut that's not a reasonable alternative for most people.
the plan is simple price gouging, with the main objective being o boost share value by showing a more enticing revenue stream.
and this benefits.... ?
1
I think this is yet another bee that got placed in Trump's ear, he was told it would "spur growth" or some such easy-to-say slogan, and so he said, "let's get it done."
And as with all the half-baked initiatives coming out of this amateur-hour White House, it will not go anywhere. What exactly is its selling point? What can Trump tweet about it that sounds even remotely appealing?
So much winning.
And as with all the half-baked initiatives coming out of this amateur-hour White House, it will not go anywhere. What exactly is its selling point? What can Trump tweet about it that sounds even remotely appealing?
So much winning.
2
Verizon and AT&T are losing wireless customers at a rate of 300,000/quarter. They are trying to become media companies instead of phone companies. And they'd like to muscle out Netflix and Amazon video.
It's nothing new for Republicans to serve their corporate donors, and that is what the push for allowing them to prioritize Internet to suit their new business model is all about.
It's nothing new for Republicans to serve their corporate donors, and that is what the push for allowing them to prioritize Internet to suit their new business model is all about.
4
More lies, more gate keepers, higher cost for consumers. Republicans are all about creating bottle necks so that more money can be extracted from consumers. Don't doubt for a second that there will be a tiered system in short order. Prepare to buffer.
The glib and intelligent Mr. Ajit Pai would be better utilized as Trump's press secretary or some other roll requiring a convincing liar.
The glib and intelligent Mr. Ajit Pai would be better utilized as Trump's press secretary or some other roll requiring a convincing liar.
2
Maybe Trump is cynically banking on the lower educational level of his voters and thinks that they don't use the internet enough to care or are too unsophisticated to know the difference. As usual, when things go south, and his supporters howl over not being able to watch stupid videos on YouTube or the marked increase in their cable bills, he will blame Obama for this.
3
Telcos can now gather information on their clients and share it with whomever they please. Think about it. Your cell phone, your computer, your smart TV, your Alexa/Echo, your car – all gathering information on you that can now be sold or provided to the government without a warrant (depending on how far the telcos go with their policies).
Even in your library and your child’s school. All of this data and their information is now fair game.
The change in privacy and net neutrality will be extremely harmful to our right to privacy, our entrepreneurial spirit and our civil liberties. The Internet is not a luxury; it is a requirement for commerce, knowledge, and mobility for all. The left, right and middle are all equally invested in keeping Net Neutrality. The only ones who are not are the Telcos who lobbied hard for this.
This is a total failure of government leadership, government oversight and government process. The people did not ask for this. The telco’s did.
For shame.
Even in your library and your child’s school. All of this data and their information is now fair game.
The change in privacy and net neutrality will be extremely harmful to our right to privacy, our entrepreneurial spirit and our civil liberties. The Internet is not a luxury; it is a requirement for commerce, knowledge, and mobility for all. The left, right and middle are all equally invested in keeping Net Neutrality. The only ones who are not are the Telcos who lobbied hard for this.
This is a total failure of government leadership, government oversight and government process. The people did not ask for this. The telco’s did.
For shame.
7
proving, yet again, that America has the best government money can buy.
corporations are people, too, my friend. and 47% of them are greedy crooks.
corporations are people, too, my friend. and 47% of them are greedy crooks.
The FCC should get back to what it was created for - ensuring competition among providers of information to ensure multiple voice can be heard.
The electrical distribution model is a good one. Wires, originally put in place by a monopoly are now simply "maintained" by that regional monopoly under government watch. My city contracts with another supplier for electricity that is cheaper than the monopoly provider. Wires have to be maintained and upgraded else they will "lose" the contract to maintain the wires they put in.
Homes and businesses need competition, whether it be multiple providers available to a home (Comcasts aging cable approach Vs. Verizons modern FIOS) or whether it's a single community broadband system that allows others access. Net Neutrality now occurs by choice of provider or via community board meetings where elected representatives decide on how bandwidth will be allocated.
It is expensive to maintain wires for the Internet. Netflix forced cable providers to "subsidize them by giving them massive bandwidth (which Comcast passed onto customers by forcing them to buy more bandwidth to access it).
Our community broadband would love it if Netflix paid us to provide them bandwidth for their content to be streamed within my city. We can also see what competition does - lower prices, higher bandwidth and no caps on usage.
The electrical distribution model is a good one. Wires, originally put in place by a monopoly are now simply "maintained" by that regional monopoly under government watch. My city contracts with another supplier for electricity that is cheaper than the monopoly provider. Wires have to be maintained and upgraded else they will "lose" the contract to maintain the wires they put in.
Homes and businesses need competition, whether it be multiple providers available to a home (Comcasts aging cable approach Vs. Verizons modern FIOS) or whether it's a single community broadband system that allows others access. Net Neutrality now occurs by choice of provider or via community board meetings where elected representatives decide on how bandwidth will be allocated.
It is expensive to maintain wires for the Internet. Netflix forced cable providers to "subsidize them by giving them massive bandwidth (which Comcast passed onto customers by forcing them to buy more bandwidth to access it).
Our community broadband would love it if Netflix paid us to provide them bandwidth for their content to be streamed within my city. We can also see what competition does - lower prices, higher bandwidth and no caps on usage.
1
Let the government run it all as it is done in civilized countries such as Europe. Socialism is not a bad thing! And NO it does not lead to communism.
Get rid of data throttling. Unlimited means unlimited not this so called policy where the consumer, I mean sucker, pays for 30 days of use and only gets a few hours or a few days at best before the data is signal blocked and is throttled back where the cell phone or computer is totally unusable. Consumer is not getting what they are paying for. It's called stealing, RICO, fraud, price gouging and price fixing, etc. Put the corporations out of business and into jail immediately. Sprint Boostmobile is the worst as the CEO Marcelo Claire makes $22M per year and the Chairman Masoyoshi Son is worth $7B. Jail them and out of business immediately. Teddy Roosevelt dealt with trash like this over 100 years ago. Trust busting! Then jail! People not profits! Tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax all Republican'ts and those who vote for and support them out of existence just like in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. Problem solved. Simple.
Get rid of data throttling. Unlimited means unlimited not this so called policy where the consumer, I mean sucker, pays for 30 days of use and only gets a few hours or a few days at best before the data is signal blocked and is throttled back where the cell phone or computer is totally unusable. Consumer is not getting what they are paying for. It's called stealing, RICO, fraud, price gouging and price fixing, etc. Put the corporations out of business and into jail immediately. Sprint Boostmobile is the worst as the CEO Marcelo Claire makes $22M per year and the Chairman Masoyoshi Son is worth $7B. Jail them and out of business immediately. Teddy Roosevelt dealt with trash like this over 100 years ago. Trust busting! Then jail! People not profits! Tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax all Republican'ts and those who vote for and support them out of existence just like in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. Problem solved. Simple.
1
Removing the "dead hand" of government is why we deregulated the telephone industry. The clear result over time? Drastically telephone bills and an explosion new services. Liberals want to create an old Ma Bell with the internet. I, for one, don't miss the old beige rotary phones we used to be stuck with under government "consumer protection."
There is no parallel here. Phones served a very narrow technical purpose that limited impact to a thin slice of activities. The internet is a very, very different conduit of infinitely greater value and importance.
1
By reading the comment section here, it seems like the folks who are in favor of creating fast lanes don't fully understand how the internet works. Everything that is being promised now has been promised time and time again in the past. Have ISP's done anything to "innovate" during those time periods, no. People really need to look into their ISP's past and understand why the need to regulate them arose.
2
Everybody seems to be incensed by the muslim ban, the EPA roll backs, Syria and other things while Dodd-Frank repeal and Net neutrality receive almost no attention from the public. A quick poll amid my friends None has a clue what Dodd-Frank is. Everything this administration has done or had attempted so far was directed at middle class's pockets. The media should get this message out in big freaking billboards visible from outer space.
3
You are absolutely right. The problem is that people need to learn how to think for themselves.
1
" . . .providers like AT&T and Verizon that own the “pipes.” "
They don't own the pipes. Their customers paid for those "pipes". Their customers should not be made to pay again.
They don't own the pipes. Their customers paid for those "pipes". Their customers should not be made to pay again.
Actually, they do own the pipes... specifically the servers that packets are routed through.
The best way to deal with this mess is competition. Now that wireless is a via mode of Internet, we should encourage competition among companies.
We also need to make sure that we bring as much of this onshore as possible. I do not trust Ajit Pai, because he is from India and like all Indians wants to outsource American tech jobs to incompetent India.
The Internet and tech is now vital to American security. Train American kids instead of hiring poor quality third world workers. Retain and retrain American professionals.
The best way to deal with this mess is competition. Now that wireless is a via mode of Internet, we should encourage competition among companies.
We also need to make sure that we bring as much of this onshore as possible. I do not trust Ajit Pai, because he is from India and like all Indians wants to outsource American tech jobs to incompetent India.
The Internet and tech is now vital to American security. Train American kids instead of hiring poor quality third world workers. Retain and retrain American professionals.
1
Last night I was horrified to see a TV advertisement for a hand gun. Is that a result of the demise of net neutrality?
Did Trump voters really vote for________ (fill in the blank).
--the assault on net neutrality;
--trashing a healthcare system that provided health insurance for millions of Americans;
--a tax law that will make multimillionaires and billionaires, including the Abominable Showman, richer than they were;
--the monetization of the White House;
--the ultra-militarization of America;
and on and on and on into an endless night of death and destruction.
Is this truly what they voted for?
--the assault on net neutrality;
--trashing a healthcare system that provided health insurance for millions of Americans;
--a tax law that will make multimillionaires and billionaires, including the Abominable Showman, richer than they were;
--the monetization of the White House;
--the ultra-militarization of America;
and on and on and on into an endless night of death and destruction.
Is this truly what they voted for?
1
We have the BEST Chair of the FCC that money can buy!
This guy should never have been the head of FCC. What a disgrace!
2
The best explanation for Mr. Pai's continued push to get rid of net neutrality may be from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." One of the few accomplishments from the new administration is the idea that political appointees can't become lobbyists for the areas they oversee for a longer period of time. Was Pai "grandfathered" in? I suspect so...
3
Today's announcement of weak economic growth should have been entirely anticipated. While Trump throws panders to the less affluent center of the country, the money is on the coasts and the coasts have stopped spending money and started saving more of it in anticipation of Trump's childish and vindictive attacks on us. If he keeps attacking us, we'll continue to withhold the economic stimulus that we entirely control -- our spending. Wait till you see what happens when they outlaw abortion rights! It'll be economic collapse.
It’s so odd – or these days, maybe it’s not – how something that’s mostly technical is now political. Net neutrality is another victim of our post-fact, neo Orwellian doublespeak world: One side likes the rule that ‘…the network should have no constraints’, the other seeks to eliminate that constraint.
Perhaps the major concern about net neutrality is over network speed. You don’t want to be caught in the slow-lane! The automobile analogy fails, though, because the internet is already ridiculously fast (and getting faster). It’s your provider that chooses to throttle that speed, holding it hostage as a billing parameter. Opponents to net neutrality, then, appear to be in pursuit of still other metrics to choke the consumer experience, and they’re doing it under the guise of ‘innovation’.
The net is neutral in South Korea, whose citizens enjoy a firehose of a network. And it’s cheap and fast: Let’s aspire to that.
Perhaps the major concern about net neutrality is over network speed. You don’t want to be caught in the slow-lane! The automobile analogy fails, though, because the internet is already ridiculously fast (and getting faster). It’s your provider that chooses to throttle that speed, holding it hostage as a billing parameter. Opponents to net neutrality, then, appear to be in pursuit of still other metrics to choke the consumer experience, and they’re doing it under the guise of ‘innovation’.
The net is neutral in South Korea, whose citizens enjoy a firehose of a network. And it’s cheap and fast: Let’s aspire to that.
75
Add up all of Trump's proposals so far and figure how much the average person's cost of living will rise in response. These policy changes cost money and you can bet that we plebes will be the ones paying for it. Our taxes may or may not decrease, but what does it matter when we have to shell out 20% more for tariffs and such at the checkout counter?
1
The first rule of life is always "If it isn't broke, then don't try to fix it!". Net neutrality, enacted under a Republican President, has worked perfectly well. Let's see how everyone feels when cable & phone companies raise our bills even higher. The last time I looked, none of them were in danger of filing bankruptcy.
If Drumpf voters don't rise to oppose this, then perhaps they really are as stupid as their detractors believe. They have elected the Alligators to drain the swamp; apparently they are creating an Alligator Farm for their cronies.
If Drumpf voters don't rise to oppose this, then perhaps they really are as stupid as their detractors believe. They have elected the Alligators to drain the swamp; apparently they are creating an Alligator Farm for their cronies.
Great opinion piece. Net Neutrality is good for *everybody* except cable and mobile companies. And honestly it's probably good for them in the long run, too.
Here's irony: I often use net neutrality as an analogue for ranked choice voting (such as Maine just adopted), in the sense that political parties fear ranked choice voting in the same way, and for the same reason, that cable and wireless companies fear net neutrality: it threatens the barriers that protect their unjustified power.
And here we have one of those groups (professional politicians) trying to help the other group (cable/wireless companies) kill off the thing they fear most.
The swamp gets deeper.
Here's irony: I often use net neutrality as an analogue for ranked choice voting (such as Maine just adopted), in the sense that political parties fear ranked choice voting in the same way, and for the same reason, that cable and wireless companies fear net neutrality: it threatens the barriers that protect their unjustified power.
And here we have one of those groups (professional politicians) trying to help the other group (cable/wireless companies) kill off the thing they fear most.
The swamp gets deeper.
50
What is Pai trying to fix asks the writer of this column? He answers it in the article: Pai serves the telecommunication giants exclusively by undoing an FCC rule they didn't want and are now setting right by their well educated insider whose loyalty will benefit their industry to the detriment of us all. Simple.
11
I've read this piece and also listened to Pai's interview on PBS last night. Neither is convincing. We've had these rules for 3 years and seen no real difference in internet pricing or competition. The only difference seems to be in who enforces the rules. I'd like to see some examples of the "record of success" cited by Mr. Wu. The "popularity ... and acceptance" is so much persiflage.
The rules Pai seeks to reverse date from 2015; citing the Bush administration is unconvincing.
The rules Pai seeks to reverse date from 2015; citing the Bush administration is unconvincing.
4
Net neutrality didn't begin in 2015. I don't know what you heard Pai say, but net neutrality was a design principle of the Internet from the outset.
The example Wu cites in his first paragraph is apt: Netflix would not exist if the cable companies that supply broadband Internet could have prevented it. They can't, legally, and never could.
That hasn't stopped them from trying, including contributing mightily to Republican candidates who'll do their bidding. They have skirted the rules, impeding the growth of Internet television. The mechanisms are arcane and non-obvious, but effective.
Consequently in 2015 the Obama administration undertook to reclassify the Internet as a common carrier -- like the phone system itself -- instead of an information service. The FCC went that route only because the courts said the regulations it wanted to impose could not be imposed on an information service. That might be what Pai referred to, but it's sheer deceit to pretend he's only returning to status quo ante, or that that status protected consumer interests sufficiently.
Wu is correct that the Internet is a new atmosphere, a new public property. We don't let anyone determine who can publish a newspaper or open a radio station. Broadcasters are not shut down because of content. Under Pai, though, Verizon or Comcast could charge higher rates based on content. Or interfere with competing content.
You will know they succeeded when watching Verizon TV.
The example Wu cites in his first paragraph is apt: Netflix would not exist if the cable companies that supply broadband Internet could have prevented it. They can't, legally, and never could.
That hasn't stopped them from trying, including contributing mightily to Republican candidates who'll do their bidding. They have skirted the rules, impeding the growth of Internet television. The mechanisms are arcane and non-obvious, but effective.
Consequently in 2015 the Obama administration undertook to reclassify the Internet as a common carrier -- like the phone system itself -- instead of an information service. The FCC went that route only because the courts said the regulations it wanted to impose could not be imposed on an information service. That might be what Pai referred to, but it's sheer deceit to pretend he's only returning to status quo ante, or that that status protected consumer interests sufficiently.
Wu is correct that the Internet is a new atmosphere, a new public property. We don't let anyone determine who can publish a newspaper or open a radio station. Broadcasters are not shut down because of content. Under Pai, though, Verizon or Comcast could charge higher rates based on content. Or interfere with competing content.
You will know they succeeded when watching Verizon TV.
2
Tim Wu is correct that "Net Neutrality" policy, including active rules ISPs had to follow, date back to the Bush administration. "kwb's" implication that Net Neutrality has only been in effect since 2015 is incorrect. The Obama-era FCC had to create the 2015 rule because a of court ruling in favor of the large ISPs saying the FCC could not regulate their pricing under the technology category they were classified under. So a new rule was needed that included classifying broadband Internet providers as "common carriers," which they have surely become for modern life and business to proceed effectively. The effect was not to create Net Neutrality, but to enable it to continue. Thus the innovation and efficiency in the information and entertainment economies spurred by Net Neutrality do indeed go back many years as Wu describes in this opinion piece.
1
Ma Bell owned and controlled telephone service in this country for over a century.
If net neutrality goes, there will be a Battle of the Titans between cable and telephone companies to gain control of larger and larger service areas.
We will all lose.
If net neutrality goes, there will be a Battle of the Titans between cable and telephone companies to gain control of larger and larger service areas.
We will all lose.
31
Except you're forgetting that when titans compete, they do so by lowering rates for us, the consumers. So we'd actually win. That's how competition works.
That battle was fought 2 decades ago. We now effectively have recreated Ma Bell. Or do you use a small phone company?
This battle is not over geographic territory. Building a physical network is expensive. This battle is over who controls what information passes over that network. Will it be determined by who clicks on what, as today? Or will it be determined by contract, by who pays more in dollars and obeisance to the phone/cable company?
This is another chapter in the long land grab that is American history. The American public funded the research that underwrote the Internet. It created TCP/IP with no patents or royalties. And today it owns it, as public birthright. Sure, various companies supply different parts of it; it has to be paid for. But no one controls where it goes or what it says, because no private entity owns it.
So, naturally, someone wants to steal it, to appropriate public property for private gain. That someone is the telecommunications industry, which is best positioned to understand how to exploit public credulity and political persuasion.
That is what is happening, right now.
One day, we'll be able to tell our grandchildren about the Old Internet, when anyone could say anything and new businesses appeared out of nowhere almost daily. Before Verizon bought CBS and Paramount. When Lily Tomlin could mock the phone company, "we don't care because we don't have to."
This battle is not over geographic territory. Building a physical network is expensive. This battle is over who controls what information passes over that network. Will it be determined by who clicks on what, as today? Or will it be determined by contract, by who pays more in dollars and obeisance to the phone/cable company?
This is another chapter in the long land grab that is American history. The American public funded the research that underwrote the Internet. It created TCP/IP with no patents or royalties. And today it owns it, as public birthright. Sure, various companies supply different parts of it; it has to be paid for. But no one controls where it goes or what it says, because no private entity owns it.
So, naturally, someone wants to steal it, to appropriate public property for private gain. That someone is the telecommunications industry, which is best positioned to understand how to exploit public credulity and political persuasion.
That is what is happening, right now.
One day, we'll be able to tell our grandchildren about the Old Internet, when anyone could say anything and new businesses appeared out of nowhere almost daily. Before Verizon bought CBS and Paramount. When Lily Tomlin could mock the phone company, "we don't care because we don't have to."
1
What is the point of paying for high bandwidth if the ISP will then reduce it depending on "content"? These monopolies already overcharge for the bandwidth suitable for streaming. They certainly won't provide a refund for the slower speed or blocked content!
If ISPs do not want to provide net-neutral Internet broadband connections, then the FCC had better allow for competitors - like municipal or other public interest service providers to provide that connection AND PRIVACY.
What's next? Will power providers want to eliminate power-neutrality and charge more for electrons powering your cable box?
If ISPs do not want to provide net-neutral Internet broadband connections, then the FCC had better allow for competitors - like municipal or other public interest service providers to provide that connection AND PRIVACY.
What's next? Will power providers want to eliminate power-neutrality and charge more for electrons powering your cable box?
53
Until 2017, the FCC did enforce competition on the Internet. It did a better job before the Bush administration facilitated monopoly consolidation among the phone companies. Obama consistently tightened rules to allow neutral access.
Elevating Pai was practically Trump's first act. Pai was always a tool of the telecoms, and his position favoring their position was well known. What we are seeing now is a predictable outcome, entirely intentional. And, in a just world, nothing less than criminal.
Elevating Pai was practically Trump's first act. Pai was always a tool of the telecoms, and his position favoring their position was well known. What we are seeing now is a predictable outcome, entirely intentional. And, in a just world, nothing less than criminal.
1
The Grand Old Plantation voters always vote for the plantation owners because they get treated so well with bleached white flour bread crumbs.
Nobody deserves a raise more than cable CEO's, large corporations and the dividends/capital gains sunshine Greed Over People crowd.
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
The Republican Party made that quote their official party platform.
Voting against their own interests since 1964, we are your Whites R Us Nincompoop Trump Nation.
Sad(istic) !
Nobody deserves a raise more than cable CEO's, large corporations and the dividends/capital gains sunshine Greed Over People crowd.
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
The Republican Party made that quote their official party platform.
Voting against their own interests since 1964, we are your Whites R Us Nincompoop Trump Nation.
Sad(istic) !
72
I am a moderate consumer of band width and I resent subsidizing mega band width gamers.
3
You aren't subsidizing anyone. The cost to the cable company is the same regardless of speed or data volume. In a age where gigabit connections are common, no one household, even one with 10 hard core gamers could cause much stress on the system. In fact you are costing the cable company more money to install and maintain infrastructure to meter/reduce speed; however by throttling speed the cable company can charge more for higher speeds. Simply put Comcast / Time Warner is conditioning you to believe speed costs more just as the wireless providers have done for years.
1
I resent paying for the Iraq war, to cite just one example.
Nothing about the FCC's proposal will reduce your bills. It will increase them, by increasing telecom power. And it will diminish your freedom, by increasing theirs.
Nothing about the FCC's proposal will reduce your bills. It will increase them, by increasing telecom power. And it will diminish your freedom, by increasing theirs.
2
I am not in favor of net neutrality. The is a need to continue to invest in the network infrastructure. The question is who pays for it.
Net neutrality says that consumers pay and the companies that make billions of dollars off the net get off scot-free. What is wrong with having netflix and google pay more for their access to the net.
Net neutrality says that consumers pay and the companies that make billions of dollars off the net get off scot-free. What is wrong with having netflix and google pay more for their access to the net.
2
It's true that billion dollar companies can afford to pay more. But what about small businesses and start-ups? A new company that has a better idea about streaming content may well not be able to afford paying higher prices to get their content out to customers faster. Would you buy a streaming service that has pauses and jitters because it is not supplied with sufficient speed? Or more to the point slower than its competitors?
We, the consumers, already pay for the speed we want. I can pay X for 15 megabit per second (mbs) internet service from my cable company, or pay more for 20 mbs, or even more for 30, or 50, etc. But what good is my 50 mbs connection to the internet if the company providing the content - say a new "Netflix" company - can't afford to send it to me at that speed.
The other issue is what happens when your internet service provider (ISP) also has business providing content. For example, cable companies usually offer on demand movies. Without net neutrality, they can throttle (slow down) competitor traffic (like Netflix) to "encourage" you to buy from them. ISP's have already been caught doing this multiple times.
We, the consumers, already pay for the speed we want. I can pay X for 15 megabit per second (mbs) internet service from my cable company, or pay more for 20 mbs, or even more for 30, or 50, etc. But what good is my 50 mbs connection to the internet if the company providing the content - say a new "Netflix" company - can't afford to send it to me at that speed.
The other issue is what happens when your internet service provider (ISP) also has business providing content. For example, cable companies usually offer on demand movies. Without net neutrality, they can throttle (slow down) competitor traffic (like Netflix) to "encourage" you to buy from them. ISP's have already been caught doing this multiple times.
2
Netflix and Google will be the ones that benefit from abandoning net neutrality. While they can afford to pay the cable companies ransom, the small startups that threaten their predominance won't be able to compete.
1
The one who'll pay is the customers, both in transferred costs and in more limited choice.
2
I have given up on trying to figure out a Trump voter. There is nothing in his agenda that will help those that turned out wearing all those goofy read hats. In fact quite the opposite, in those rust belt/mining towns they will soon experience: higher internet bills, bad water, no medical insurance, poor public schools, elimination of drug treatment programs, decrease in social security benefits, and loss of jobs. The irony of it all, I am a liberal, voted against Trump, yet, because I'm financially OK, I will experience none of these bad things, and in fact, under his tax plan will receive a healthy tax break.
7
PAI means Paid Agent of Internet companies serving their needs before and after his current job. The millions opposing him should organize and send him personal email to his FCC address and check out net neutrality.
13
I was one of the 4 million that wrote to the FCC. Unfortunately, with this administration, we could quadruple that number and it won't make a bit of difference. We all need to try anyway. Our calls and letters need to go to not just the FCC, but also our legislators to publicly speak against this and to put pressure on Pai.
11
Higher cable bills? Really? Prognosticators ignore promising technical achievements, such as wireless competition, no cables to run, a home transceiver at the window or on the roof. Regulation strangles innovation.
You can't ignore the fact that this is a public entity and net neutrality was a bi-partisan effort brought about by the Bush Administration. Please... spare us the expense that these companies have had to put out like cables and transceivers. So you believe they should be trillionaires instead of billionaires? And they should make all the money off the back of a public entity??
3
Monopoly power and high barriers to entry strangle innovation.
1
Regulation also strangles competition. More competition will lower costs and improve services. Allow the market/consumer to make choices. Believers in regulation should study the fine print on their phone, electric and gas bills. Follow the money. Does the public service commission truly act in the interests of the public? Does the F. C. C.?
Did they intend to vote for higher cable bills? No.
Did they? Yes.
Did they? Yes.
16
I'll leave discussions of monopolistic favoritism and economic inequity aside. I weary of repeating the same argument over and over. Ajit Pai clearly does not respond to logic and reason. As correctly mentioned, his actions are explicitly punitive to anyone that isn't a major telecommunications company.
Instead, I'll try a different tact this time. Why should we allow telecoms to charge both consumers and producers for the same service? That's what the end of net neutrality means. You still get served an enormous bill each month but now the ISP collects revenue from the websites you use as well. The cost to the internet companies will either retard innovation or force the companies to increase the cost of subscriptions.
Worse. Telecoms can use the threat of throttling to effectively blackmail companies into buying and delivering content owned by the telecom rather than the other way around. Do you really want to go back to the 3 channel days? You're buying from Netflix or Hulu but it's all still NBC and CBS. That's the future you can look forward too. Say goodbye to new ideas like FilmStruck.
The internet needs to move in the opposite direction. Tom Wheeler had the courage to move the ball forward with the help of 4 million sensible Americans. Not only do we need to preserve net neutrality but we need to legally separate ISPs from content providers. Comcast should not be allowed own NBC universal. Internet is a utility. TV is media. These mergers are an insult to everyone.
Instead, I'll try a different tact this time. Why should we allow telecoms to charge both consumers and producers for the same service? That's what the end of net neutrality means. You still get served an enormous bill each month but now the ISP collects revenue from the websites you use as well. The cost to the internet companies will either retard innovation or force the companies to increase the cost of subscriptions.
Worse. Telecoms can use the threat of throttling to effectively blackmail companies into buying and delivering content owned by the telecom rather than the other way around. Do you really want to go back to the 3 channel days? You're buying from Netflix or Hulu but it's all still NBC and CBS. That's the future you can look forward too. Say goodbye to new ideas like FilmStruck.
The internet needs to move in the opposite direction. Tom Wheeler had the courage to move the ball forward with the help of 4 million sensible Americans. Not only do we need to preserve net neutrality but we need to legally separate ISPs from content providers. Comcast should not be allowed own NBC universal. Internet is a utility. TV is media. These mergers are an insult to everyone.
39
Netflix is already paying Verizon and Comcast. This will just remove the technical hurdles that the ISPs put up, and allow them to extort monies directly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-re...
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-n...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-re...
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-n...
Not sure why cable bills or wireless bills will go up with "non-neutrality"? This will allow the ISP providers to charge the content creators (Netflix et al) a higher rate for the bandwidth they need to get their content out. But the end-consumer cable/wireless bill shouldn't be impacted... could actually be lower?
What am I missing?
I do agree that neutrality makes a lot of sense to for nurturing content diversity and creativity; esp given the real lack of iISP choice in so much of the US.
But this argument that cable prices will go up is incorrect IMO.
What am I missing?
I do agree that neutrality makes a lot of sense to for nurturing content diversity and creativity; esp given the real lack of iISP choice in so much of the US.
But this argument that cable prices will go up is incorrect IMO.
3
By charging content creators, content creators would have no choice but to pass those costs back to the user as well. Get ready for Netflix to raise its pricing and prepare to listen to way more ads on Spotify.
In the end, you'll be stuck with the bill one way or another and cable companies will pocket the extra cash. It's a blatant attempt to extract more money by monopolistic ISPs.
In the end, you'll be stuck with the bill one way or another and cable companies will pocket the extra cash. It's a blatant attempt to extract more money by monopolistic ISPs.
57
Of course the bills are going to go up! Do you think someone like Netflix is just going to eat the cost? Do you think Spectrum (or whatever your provider) is going to give you the same access if they don't have to? These businesses are not your friends.
6
You're missing basic economics. Netflix et al will simply pass the costs through to the consumer (ie. you and me and everyone who subscribes). The irony of course is that a majority of Trump's voters can barely afford their bills as-is, so this is truly a populist move to support the people, right?
6
The only reason to support the 'Fix' is if it chokes Breitbart and InfoWars down to a trickle.
And we know that's not going to happen.
And we know that's not going to happen.
3
"Did Trump voters really vote for higher cable bills."
No, they didn't. Many of them were finally driven to administer a swift kick to a smug elite who never tire of emitting abusive and superior commentary about them. And they were sufficiently fed up not to care too much about the consequences.
No, they didn't. Many of them were finally driven to administer a swift kick to a smug elite who never tire of emitting abusive and superior commentary about them. And they were sufficiently fed up not to care too much about the consequences.
1
Too bad for the rest of us that they've harmed.
1
Soon enough, they'll be sliming back under the rocks. There will be great injury from what they have enabled, but none so great as what they've done to themselves.
You're kidding, right? Look at his cabinet and everyone he's appointed. Millionaires and Billionaires! Surely they have everyone's best interests at heart!
3
And this is but one example of how DT's Cabinet and agency appointments are being destructive of good government functioning for the protection of the public. It is what happens when the fox is in charge of the hen house. The nation is being destroyed through the undermining of functional government in the same way that a house loses its integrity to an infestation of termites. To the outside it looks perfectly all right but for some dust here and there, but don't walk in because you may fall through the floor or have the ceiling come down on your head.
4
Abolishing net neutrality is like soccer's "own goal"! Hooray for measures that hurt American innovation and economy!
3
It is clear you do not understand the mechanics of Net Neutrality. The only bills that will go up are your Netflix and Youtube bills. Both new age video providers have enjoyed a free ride on internet infrastructure. The management of these companies were so arrogant under Obama at one point it felt like Reid Hastings was the Chairman of the FCC. Plus, Netflix has the technology to deliver high quality video over any line chocked or not by bursting traffic. Please stop with the politics of any big company is bad except if they originate from Silicon Valley.
1
Hmm...Bill, so you think the guy, Tim Wu, who actually coined the term "Net Neutrality" doesn't understand the mechanics of it?
What's clear is that Tim Wu has a much more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the impact of net neutrality regulations (and their repeal) than you do.
What's clear is that Tim Wu has a much more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the impact of net neutrality regulations (and their repeal) than you do.
2
It is clear you do not understand the mechanics of Net Neutrality. Sure Netflix and other major providers of streaming content may have the funds to pay higher rates now, but that's not an accident. Net Neutrality supported their growth and development. Had broadband providers (BBP) had their way initially, charging their competitors higher rates to use their infrastructure, BBP's would have snuffed out all of those services. BBPs providers what to do it all - own the infrastructure, create, and control the content. Net Neutrality seeks to treat BBPs as telephone companies in that they get to own the infrastructure, but not the content or influence what content is delivered.
I ma sure about that but I will not disclose how I would know more. But I love the arrogance. It is very typical of the New York Time Lefty Arrogance. It is clear Tim Wu understands Net Neutrality from the point of view of the Netflix of the world not sure he really understands how it works.
Killing net neutrality is a very bad idea.
6
The mask is off of Mr. Pai.
He should resign because it is obvious he is working for the folks he should be regulating
The same is true with Trumps new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who has now allowed "chlorpyrifos" – an insecticide linked with cancer and neurological problems to be used. Pruitt totally ignored the conclusions of the federal agency’s own scientists, as well as independent scientific studies and literature to overturn a ban on this offshoot from a WW11 chemical weapon.
Trump is dangerous and mentally unfit for America. That is why "We The People" did not vote for him. He was appointed by republicans in the electoral college against the Will of the Majority of voters.
He should resign because it is obvious he is working for the folks he should be regulating
The same is true with Trumps new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who has now allowed "chlorpyrifos" – an insecticide linked with cancer and neurological problems to be used. Pruitt totally ignored the conclusions of the federal agency’s own scientists, as well as independent scientific studies and literature to overturn a ban on this offshoot from a WW11 chemical weapon.
Trump is dangerous and mentally unfit for America. That is why "We The People" did not vote for him. He was appointed by republicans in the electoral college against the Will of the Majority of voters.
5
It's simple economics...the more capitalists play around with something, the more expensive, less usable with fewer options it gets for the consumer.
5
Hit the nail on the head. The more power is concentrated, the less "choice" exists, except for the choice to use x product or no product, which is the great choice that Republicans like to offer (health care or no health care, it's up to you, consumer!)
1
Mr. Pai is a true creature from the black lagoon of the Washington swamp. While he may truly believe policies that do nothing but advantage the already advantaged are good for the economy, these beliefs are delusional, at best. Previous bipartisan implementation of net neutrality have proved the power of regulating fair and open rules of the road. Only a member of Washington's revolving door swamp dwellers could advocate for the ability of cable and phone corporations to gouge consumers more than they already do. It is apparent, as pointed out in the editorial, that this is partisan payback. But it is also Mr. Pai's ticket to re-entry into the highly lucrative industry sector. Mr. Pai is a perfect example of the swamp that the current president claimed he would drain. Bad policies implemented for personal gain.
3
I think we have reached fast a point where you can take the opposite position of whatever the Trump administration proposes and always be right.
10
If you read the right-wing blogs and the comment threads, you'll discover an appalling ignorance about net neutrality. Some commenters are convinced that net neutrality gave Obama the opportunity to surveil American citizens. Hopeless!
9
Small and mid-sized companies are the engines of economic growth in the US – and they’re dependent on the Internet to bring their new ideas to market. Broadband is the new “Main Street” – not just “Main Street, USA,” but everywhere in the world.
Ending Net Neutrality will allow your internet provider to sell your eyes and digital addresses. Your choices, your freedom will be sold to the highest bidder, and you will have no say in how this happens, and with so few internet providers providing near monopoly services in your area, you will have no choice but to accept their deal or have no Internet service at all.
If you are a Fox viewer, imagine that the only channel you can get on your browser is MSNBC and if you love PBS Newshour imagine that only CNN shows up.
Media companies and the largest e-commerce companies like Amazon will control the roadways, and without any Net Neutrality regulations at all, every digital road will only work for them. Digital bullies will force every other competitor off the main roadways.
You and your family's choices will be bought and sold without you even knowing it and you'll never know what you may never see.
Without Net Neutrality you'll never be King of the Digital Roadway again, and you won't even know who bought and sold your digital future. Don't let the FCC sell your family's online life to the highest bidder, contact Congress and the FCC today.
Ending Net Neutrality will allow your internet provider to sell your eyes and digital addresses. Your choices, your freedom will be sold to the highest bidder, and you will have no say in how this happens, and with so few internet providers providing near monopoly services in your area, you will have no choice but to accept their deal or have no Internet service at all.
If you are a Fox viewer, imagine that the only channel you can get on your browser is MSNBC and if you love PBS Newshour imagine that only CNN shows up.
Media companies and the largest e-commerce companies like Amazon will control the roadways, and without any Net Neutrality regulations at all, every digital road will only work for them. Digital bullies will force every other competitor off the main roadways.
You and your family's choices will be bought and sold without you even knowing it and you'll never know what you may never see.
Without Net Neutrality you'll never be King of the Digital Roadway again, and you won't even know who bought and sold your digital future. Don't let the FCC sell your family's online life to the highest bidder, contact Congress and the FCC today.
20
Trump sells us out again. Gross.
3
"Did Trump voters really vote for higher cable bills?" Well, yeah. They might not have understood it then, they might not understand it now, but that's just one of the things they voted for. They also voted for a contempt for the rule of law, loss of their health care, inability to tell truth from falsehood....
12
We already miss Tom Wheeler, a champion for 'net neutrality', as FCC chairman; now replaced by republican Ajit Pai, who opposes 'net neutrality'. Of note, Mr Pai used to work for Verizon before entering politics. Removing the freedom and justice that 'net neutrality confers, is a grotesque insult to consumers, as it smacks of elitism and partisanship, as the Industry is most likely paying for it. Unless AT&T and Verizon come out in an unusual move of 'patriotic honesty' (I know, never heard of before) and defend 'net neutrality' (a first!). Oh well, "hope springs eternal".
7
Mr. Pai was appointed by Obama to the FCC. Granted it was a seat that had to be filled by a Republican but surely Obama could have found one that was not a corporate shill. The fact that Pai was recommended by Mitch McConnell should have been a huge warning sign. But then Obama also appointed Republican Comey to be FBI Director when he could have appointed a Democrat. Apparently he learned nothing from the debacle Clinton faced after appointing Louie Freeh to that position. Freeh spent his time helping Ken Starr's political witch hunt, trying to take Clinton down. Democrats are the political version of Charlie Brown trying to kick a football while the Republicans' Lucy setting him up time and time again. Fool me once......
6
The law requires two Commissioners from each party, plus the Chair, who is from the President's party. Obama followed the long-standing norm that he appoint the other party's Commissioners based on the recommendation of the Senate majority leader. I doubt that Mr. Pai would have been his first choice. Nor would Commissioner O'Reilly.
There are two open seats, one Republican and one Democratic. It would be disturbing if Trump upended this tradition.
There are two open seats, one Republican and one Democratic. It would be disturbing if Trump upended this tradition.
Big surprise. Corporations, who own the Repukes count, consumers don't. That's why Verizon's bent lawyer now runs the FCC.
6
Looks like big telecom is getting the biggest piece of the Pai...
6
Very disappointing this, two opinions from leading institutions, Harvard & Columbia, and the best they can do is to find as much negative connotation as possible from the word neutrality, as if it is the holiest of all words. And warn everyone that sky will fall tomorrow. This, from the so-called elite, the same group that's convinced all Trump supporters are sweaty, uneducated, white, racist skinheads.
Give me a break!!!! There is much missing from Mr. Wu's argument (maybe everything). What stands out, however, is the complete lack of effort to analyze err, neutrally.
For starters, Mr. Wu could dive into streaming revenues of Apple, Amazon, Netflix and YouTube. He'll find they are making money beyond their wildest dreams. Heck, even Times Insider is wanting some of that action: princely extra $10/month for the rich multimedia experience. HBO wants $14/mo so you can binge-watch all the Larry David's you want, or, you like snowflakes reporting in HD from bullet-ridden war-zones, Vice News.
Net neutrality that Mr. Wu is rooting for isn't about you and me, it's about all these fat cats using (abusing) the network for free and getting hugely richer by the Megabyte second for it. Ridding net neutrality means Amazon, Netflix, Google and Apple, start parting with a buck or two to give the phone/cable companies, and consumers not a dime. Sort of like tipping the concierge for luggage service, Pai is saying no longer optional. Gotta problem with that? Didn't think so.
Give me a break!!!! There is much missing from Mr. Wu's argument (maybe everything). What stands out, however, is the complete lack of effort to analyze err, neutrally.
For starters, Mr. Wu could dive into streaming revenues of Apple, Amazon, Netflix and YouTube. He'll find they are making money beyond their wildest dreams. Heck, even Times Insider is wanting some of that action: princely extra $10/month for the rich multimedia experience. HBO wants $14/mo so you can binge-watch all the Larry David's you want, or, you like snowflakes reporting in HD from bullet-ridden war-zones, Vice News.
Net neutrality that Mr. Wu is rooting for isn't about you and me, it's about all these fat cats using (abusing) the network for free and getting hugely richer by the Megabyte second for it. Ridding net neutrality means Amazon, Netflix, Google and Apple, start parting with a buck or two to give the phone/cable companies, and consumers not a dime. Sort of like tipping the concierge for luggage service, Pai is saying no longer optional. Gotta problem with that? Didn't think so.
3
So because HBO and Netflix are providing a service which consumers love which they bore the cost of. Your argument is that the cable provider, who enjoys a government granted monopoly in most areas, should have the right get in on the action? Nonsense, fast and slow lanes on the internet are a terrible idea and invite even more abuse of locked in consumers by the service providers.
4
"Snowflakes reporting in HD from bullet-ridden war-zones"? Vice News is the best news out there, shining a light where no one, and I mean no one, will. (and I am not a millennial)
You have Fox, please let us have Vice. The desire to squash choice is the problem again.
You have Fox, please let us have Vice. The desire to squash choice is the problem again.
@GG
The cable provider is not getting in "on the action", she's simply rebuffing the en-masse dumping of costs by content providers. Their logic is no different from airlines, one carry-on only, pay for all other baggage. As for fast and slow and content-based billing, these ideas are not just great, but designed from scratch on all network gear, although inactive. Wise in the early days to get Internet to the masses, but today it's way, way behind the times. Why should a college student taking online classes, subsidize somebody's Netflix or worse, non-stop porn? That's essentially what neutrality screamers like yourselves are demanding. Go away please, those times are (almost) over.
The cable provider is not getting in "on the action", she's simply rebuffing the en-masse dumping of costs by content providers. Their logic is no different from airlines, one carry-on only, pay for all other baggage. As for fast and slow and content-based billing, these ideas are not just great, but designed from scratch on all network gear, although inactive. Wise in the early days to get Internet to the masses, but today it's way, way behind the times. Why should a college student taking online classes, subsidize somebody's Netflix or worse, non-stop porn? That's essentially what neutrality screamers like yourselves are demanding. Go away please, those times are (almost) over.
1
the evidence that this administration is "populist," is just as compelling as the evidence that it is "conservative" or "fiscally responsible" or even coherent. The only consistent value of the administration and it's enablers, McConnell and Ryan, is the ongoing transfer of wealth and power to the aristocracy of wealth and power now in place.
3
The keys to the hen house were just given to the the foxes.
3
Let's say that NOBODY gets to have an Apple watch until EVERYBODY can have an Apple watch. Then we will have wristwatch neutrality.
To understand the argument, listen to Ajit Pai directly, not as represented by this article.
To understand the argument, listen to Ajit Pai directly, not as represented by this article.
1
It really makes you wonder what the motivations for Trump et al are. Where is this even coming from, doesn't he have enough on his plate? Obviously some contributor/lobbyist/friend wants this done, and Trump doesn't have the capacity to think about it, educate himself about it or decide if its really a good idea for the "American People", he just rubber stamps it and another of one of our rights, freedoms, protections etc has vanished. He knows that the "base" doesn't know or care, as long as he keeps their guns, their unborn babies and the wall.
5
Contrary to his campaign image, Trump has turned out to be a low-energy president who doesn't even have the stamina to make his own policy, so he defers to the corporate lobbyists, billionaires and think tanks who dominate the Republican Party. It's as if we elected Jim DeMint president. They're reversing Net Neutrality not because Trump voters want it but because somebody promised Time Warner and Comcast. It's ironic because Comcast is not particularly cozy with the Republican Party.
2
Amazing, no comments......you can't let apple. Google duopoly run amok...then you get human defying Facebook,
"The proposal is the epitome of senseless government action and sharply out of step with Mr. Trump’s populist mandate."
Why so? It's entirely in step with...ah, there's the problem. You spelled "bigoted" and "big business" as "populist". Seems to be a widespread spelling problem, that.
Thank you Tim Wu, in any case, for your continued fight for a sane internet, as feeble that fight increasingly seems. Although I wouldn't call the HTML-standard-ruiners at Netflix or the employee-breakers at Amazon good examples of how net neutrality would *benefit* the user...
Why so? It's entirely in step with...ah, there's the problem. You spelled "bigoted" and "big business" as "populist". Seems to be a widespread spelling problem, that.
Thank you Tim Wu, in any case, for your continued fight for a sane internet, as feeble that fight increasingly seems. Although I wouldn't call the HTML-standard-ruiners at Netflix or the employee-breakers at Amazon good examples of how net neutrality would *benefit* the user...
2
Net neutrality is what encourages technological innovation and competition on the open internet.A s the article states, it means that the speed of internet that you pay for is the speed you get for all websites, all the time. How would anyone be opposed to that? Unfortunately, ISPs (internet service providers) such as your Verizons and your at&ts want to be able to get more money out of you and other online websites & companies by charging for the "fast lane" equivalent of internet connections, slowing down & throttling the connections of those who don't pony up the money. The problem is that this so called "fast lane" of internet connections runs at literally the same speed as internet connections under the Net Neutrality laws. It's not paying to run faster, it's paying so you don't get slowed down.
The point is, should Net Neutrality laws be abolished, ISPs like Comcast & Time Warner will be able to charge more monthly for internet services. So not only will consumer's be charged the monthly/yearly fee for their internet, but they may be charged more for using certain online services like YouTube and Twitter. This is the internet equivalent of your electric company charging you extra for using it to power your desk fan. The company doesn't have the right to charge you for what you use it for, only for the service itself. Furthermore, these ISPs most likely own TV & cable services & can dictate what competes & what doesn't. Killing net neutrality kills the open internet.
The point is, should Net Neutrality laws be abolished, ISPs like Comcast & Time Warner will be able to charge more monthly for internet services. So not only will consumer's be charged the monthly/yearly fee for their internet, but they may be charged more for using certain online services like YouTube and Twitter. This is the internet equivalent of your electric company charging you extra for using it to power your desk fan. The company doesn't have the right to charge you for what you use it for, only for the service itself. Furthermore, these ISPs most likely own TV & cable services & can dictate what competes & what doesn't. Killing net neutrality kills the open internet.
175
Mr Pai is a typical Republican who is happy to do the bidding for the industry he is supposed to regulate. What we have is an FCC Chairman that by actions shows he thinks there should not even be an FCC- the FCC version of Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
The Internet is a utility and increasingly THE utility. Voice and video communications, websites, streaming music and TV, chat- both text and multi-media, data services for home and business are all current uses of the Internet. Industry, Education, Government, Banking and much more are already heavily dependent upon it. It is a natural monopoly and should be regulated as such.
Americans already pay some of the highest prices for some of the most marginal Broadband Internet in the developed world. AT&T and Comcast are in a headlong rush to become Vertical Monopolies by producing content (Universal for Comcast and Time-Warner for AT&T), distribution (Cable/Internet for Comcast and both satellite/Fiber/DSL/Wireless for AT&T) and the branded consumer facing distributors (NBC/Telemundo/USA/MSNBC/CNBC for Comcast and HBO/Cinemax/CNN/TBS/TNT for AT&T) and while this has increased their profitability, it has not improved consumer choice, improved the quality of service or lowered prices.
Over The Top Streaming is putting competition into the TV market and Mr Pai is simply trying to kill the infant (streaming video) in the crib. He has already wiped away FCC rules to protect privacy at the ISP level, where will greed lead next?
The Internet is a utility and increasingly THE utility. Voice and video communications, websites, streaming music and TV, chat- both text and multi-media, data services for home and business are all current uses of the Internet. Industry, Education, Government, Banking and much more are already heavily dependent upon it. It is a natural monopoly and should be regulated as such.
Americans already pay some of the highest prices for some of the most marginal Broadband Internet in the developed world. AT&T and Comcast are in a headlong rush to become Vertical Monopolies by producing content (Universal for Comcast and Time-Warner for AT&T), distribution (Cable/Internet for Comcast and both satellite/Fiber/DSL/Wireless for AT&T) and the branded consumer facing distributors (NBC/Telemundo/USA/MSNBC/CNBC for Comcast and HBO/Cinemax/CNN/TBS/TNT for AT&T) and while this has increased their profitability, it has not improved consumer choice, improved the quality of service or lowered prices.
Over The Top Streaming is putting competition into the TV market and Mr Pai is simply trying to kill the infant (streaming video) in the crib. He has already wiped away FCC rules to protect privacy at the ISP level, where will greed lead next?
20
Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
Simply follow the money.
Simply follow the money.
4
So ,google,apple ,Amazon and the human deceit known as Facebook ,freely prosper to show excess garbage... make them pay
1
Net non-neutrality is the DEFINITION of the swamp. I just wish I had some sense, any sense that someone was at the switch bringing something other than vested interest. I'm less hoping now for "making American great again" than just hoping we avoid riots and a nuclear confrontation. It's become a very very low bar indeed. Michael Bloomberg, where are you when we need you?
6
Why does Trump do everything wrong?
His instinct for Evil is strong,
Wronging rights, insist,
This fake populist,
May his POTUShood not be too long!
His instinct for Evil is strong,
Wronging rights, insist,
This fake populist,
May his POTUShood not be too long!
1
The position this article takes is wrong because the logic it uses is wrong.
By making the NET not neutral companies will have a reason to improve the NET to get the business these companies want.
This will reward innovation.
In this way some people will have a better NET than other but even those others will have ä better one than they have now.
The people who back NET neutrality do not do so because you will suffer.
It's because they do not want the rich to have what they consider an advantage.
This is the real reason they beck NET neutrality.
By making the NET not neutral companies will have a reason to improve the NET to get the business these companies want.
This will reward innovation.
In this way some people will have a better NET than other but even those others will have ä better one than they have now.
The people who back NET neutrality do not do so because you will suffer.
It's because they do not want the rich to have what they consider an advantage.
This is the real reason they beck NET neutrality.
1
Except that most providers have a government granted monopoly in the areas they serve which means they have no incentive at all to do anything and with Net Neutrality gone, they will have less so.
2
Yet another example of the Trump Administration's doing the opposite of his campaign promises to promote laws to help every day Americans. Add to the list of attacks the slaughter of the EPA, clean air laws, no mention of raising the minimum wage, targeting life-link programs like Meals on Wheels and defunding Planned Parenthood, the provider of health care for millions of poor women. I could go on and on. The real issue is knowing this, why are Trump supporters deaf and blind?
7
“Just a few years ago, more than four million people wrote to the F.C.C. to demand stronger controls on the cable industry, while those who took cable’s side would have fit in the commission’s lobby.”
This time the threat is much more serious 4 can be 8, 12 … Do it but calls are even more effective, they have to staff for that and SMILE as you complain.
This time the threat is much more serious 4 can be 8, 12 … Do it but calls are even more effective, they have to staff for that and SMILE as you complain.
3
Tim, only if Trump voters had thoroughly vetted their messiah, they could figure out that although Trump's messages were full of populist agendas but his heart was never there among his followers.
Now as each day is revealing his inner soul which is nothing but full of hatred and totally vile towards the 'little guys' that he wanted to champion in all his rallies, we can easily surmise that this con man and a snake oil salesman is only to help the 'swamp' guys in Washington and elsewhere.
And he has no intention to get rid of those muddy guys and clean the swamp.
But rather muddy it more so that his rich buddies in the real estate business as well as in cable businesses can acquire the complete control over the industries they're engaged in.
And all at the expense of his 'little guys' whose cable and phone bills will go sky high now without them even knowing it, only because of this proposal by his FCC chairman to get rid of the 'net neutrality' measures that was protecting all the consumers from the ugly hands of these monstrous companies like AT&T, Verizon et Al.
So in retrospective what the Trump voters as well as the rest of the consumers who're not involved in the 'swamping' of Washington is getting ?
They're getting the end of the carrot in the form of higher costs for any devices that they lay their hands on.
Be it the tv, mobile phones,laptops which many of them use to watch streaming videos and news.
Very populist idea, huh ?
Right ?
Please give me a break.
Now as each day is revealing his inner soul which is nothing but full of hatred and totally vile towards the 'little guys' that he wanted to champion in all his rallies, we can easily surmise that this con man and a snake oil salesman is only to help the 'swamp' guys in Washington and elsewhere.
And he has no intention to get rid of those muddy guys and clean the swamp.
But rather muddy it more so that his rich buddies in the real estate business as well as in cable businesses can acquire the complete control over the industries they're engaged in.
And all at the expense of his 'little guys' whose cable and phone bills will go sky high now without them even knowing it, only because of this proposal by his FCC chairman to get rid of the 'net neutrality' measures that was protecting all the consumers from the ugly hands of these monstrous companies like AT&T, Verizon et Al.
So in retrospective what the Trump voters as well as the rest of the consumers who're not involved in the 'swamping' of Washington is getting ?
They're getting the end of the carrot in the form of higher costs for any devices that they lay their hands on.
Be it the tv, mobile phones,laptops which many of them use to watch streaming videos and news.
Very populist idea, huh ?
Right ?
Please give me a break.
58
Who would have thought: Snake oil leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
1
It's not just Netflix. What portion of readers of the Times get it over the Net? Why should cable companies be compelled to deliver content which, as here, advocates against their interests, or the interests of those in power with whom they would curry favor?
The net is now our shopping mall. Shopping malls have long been, as a right of being private property, able to suppress unwanted speech.
The net is now our shopping mall. Shopping malls have long been, as a right of being private property, able to suppress unwanted speech.
Because we the consumers pay them to do so. It is not, nor should it be my cable companies decision on which sites should load fast or slow.
2
I'm sure you'll get the point when your cell phone company decides no longer to forward some of your calls unless you pay extra.
1
There once was a strong government stance
That was established not just by chance
It’s net neutrality
Bringing vitality
And should be expanded and enhanced
That was established not just by chance
It’s net neutrality
Bringing vitality
And should be expanded and enhanced
2
Either the ISPs own their property, or they don't. Net Neutrality is the equivalent of the government telling you that when you drive to work, you're going to pick up several people you don't know and drive them to work as well, because you don't have the right to decide how to use your property.
1
Yes this is the cable companies' line but it's simplistic and dead wrong. The cable companies' businesses only exist because of government grants of authority -- i.e. franchise agreements that give them a monopoly in most of the communities where they do business, plus government-decreed access to telephone poles that they do not own. Americans already pay more for internet bandwidth than Europe or Asia because of the lack of competition -- and ending Net Neutrality gives the cable operators carte blanche to start charging everybody who sends you data. So in addition to your $180 Comcast bill now your Amazon costs will go up, your Netflix bill will go up. Google and Youtube will no longer be free because they will pass along these new charges to you. This the most anti-consumer policy that anybody could concieve of. And the sad thing is, Net Neutrality was working very well - there was no need to mess with it.
4
They only own part of infrastructure, they don't own the internet or the WWW , email or any of the other apps that use the whole infrastructure. Putting up roadblocks or expensive tolls on all the points data passes through would really change how the internet works for business, commerce, especially small business. Can't see how it wouldn't hurt social interaction, free speech and generally be a big step backwards.
2
Either you own your house or you don't.
If you own it, do you have the absolute right to use it for a business that creates a public nuisance for your neighbors?
There is such a thing as the public interest.
If you own it, do you have the absolute right to use it for a business that creates a public nuisance for your neighbors?
There is such a thing as the public interest.
2
Net neutrality is unfair to light / moderate internet users who pull up websites like this and do not stream very much. Why should a light user pay the same amount as someone who is streaming a lot ? The heavy user should pay more based on the usage. It is just logical. Netflix wants to have its customers unchecked on expense on streaming so it can be more popular and make more money. Essentially they want to free ride on the investment in internet infrastructure by the phone and cable companies.
Having bandwidth tiers where one who pulls in more data pays more per month is not in conflict with net neutrality.
Net neutrality simply guarantees that the ISP that provides internet to your home cannot favor some providers over others (e.g., Netflix over Amazon) and cannot charge providers for better/faster access to your home (e.g., Netflix pays your ISP to have better access to your home than Amazon).
Amazon and Netflix pay THEIR ISPs for their access. You and your neighbors pay your ISPs for YOUR access. And otherwise, everything is treated equally.
Net neutrality simply guarantees that the ISP that provides internet to your home cannot favor some providers over others (e.g., Netflix over Amazon) and cannot charge providers for better/faster access to your home (e.g., Netflix pays your ISP to have better access to your home than Amazon).
Amazon and Netflix pay THEIR ISPs for their access. You and your neighbors pay your ISPs for YOUR access. And otherwise, everything is treated equally.
2
What seems to work with Trump is pictures. Someone needs to take a map outlining the numbers of his supporters who would be affected by the repeal of net neutrality and then perhaps he will listen. Otherwise, he will have no clue about the issue and wouldn't care.
2
The US is still saddled with a raft of badly negotiated municipal right of way deals that never foresaw the potentials of the internet.
1
The ISPs and their industry associations are reliably major campaign donors to both major parties and their members. They want a return on their investment.
2
Understand that Mr Pai, who is very loyal to his Indian roots, is the clear example of the lackey, to his former employer in the telephone industry, and to lobbyists from all those who will benefit from the rules change that he will offer as the power of the market. In the long run it will be another means to feed price increase levels and stop the free offering of Internet news to those who need to be made aware of the theft of their choices.
2
A good rational article about the merits of net neutrality. Now how about an article that FOLLOWS THE MONEY! For years various cable providers "contributed" to local government officials to get exclusive distribution rights to the TV set in your home. They then were able to hard ball producers of content (especially sports) for exclusive rights to distribute that content into your home. My guess is that they also are able to manipulate somewhat the political views and information you can see in your home. The best part is that you get to pay through the nose for the privilege of using their product.
We won't pay $150-200 a month to get 100 channels of stuff we don't want. It took a lot of effort to finally get the cable company in our city to just give us internet access without any TV content and it still is expensive.
We won't pay $150-200 a month to get 100 channels of stuff we don't want. It took a lot of effort to finally get the cable company in our city to just give us internet access without any TV content and it still is expensive.
1
I have had this argument with some on the right before who do not understand the importance of net neutrality. Their answer is always, "Net Socialism". My answer is to again define what the term means and to challenge them to ask a Republican they know who also happens to work in the tech field whether or not they should support net neutrality, always being confident that the answer will be a resounding yes. We should fight this with everything we have and if it requires us to again to overwhelmingly contact the FCC, we should do that also.
3
I think this is the way it works: Republicans make a list of all the policies that actually benefit ordinary citizens, then they start undoing them simply in order that big corporations can make more money. Now your internet can be slower and more expensive, your streams can be poisoned, your health care will cost more and cover less, your air will go back to being unbreathable, you'll be able to see fracking towers at the Grand Canyon, and your grandchildren will have a chance to enjoy 110° summers and long droughts.
Is this a great country or what?
Is this a great country or what?
2
The cable companies perpetuate a bizarre notion that seems to now be a central tenet of American business. Namely, that it is the duty of the government and citizens to ensure that corporations can maximize their profits. That is not capitalism as I learned it.
2
The argument of Internet neutrality not being fair to the Internet providers thus the need to level the playing field between others such as Google and the Internet providers is a complete fabrication.
Internet providers are not optional, they are required for modern life in 2017. Its not competition if they all do the same changes to throttle on unfavorable traffic, to ultimately increase prices and control their competition, such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Youtube, others.
I don't have to use Google, I can use DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing or many others on a whim, that's real competition.
Yet another lie and deceitful marketing campaign, wolves trying to convince the sheep on a problem that doesnt exist.
Internet providers are not optional, they are required for modern life in 2017. Its not competition if they all do the same changes to throttle on unfavorable traffic, to ultimately increase prices and control their competition, such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Youtube, others.
I don't have to use Google, I can use DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing or many others on a whim, that's real competition.
Yet another lie and deceitful marketing campaign, wolves trying to convince the sheep on a problem that doesnt exist.
1
Very forceful and well-written, and so true. Spring is here? No, winter is coming in so many ways.
3
The end of net neutrality will stifle innovation on the Web and give cable companies yet more ability to raise prices which many consider too high already. Most consumers have extremely limited options in terms of ISPs and many consider it a utility in the same way that electricity and water are. We should continue net neutrality!
2
Yes, this policy is punishment, as is the entire Trump agenda to date. No positive ideas drive policy making in this administration, whether the topic is health care, tax reform, foreign affairs, or the environment. Punishment and reward inform cabinet picks, attitudes toward the media, all the tweets. No surprise here; it's what happens when absolute ignorance, hunger for power, and petulance meet.
2
For years I've wondered why certain groups of people will intentionally vote for people and policies that run completely orthogonal to their best interests, the interests of their peers, or of society as a whole. I've stoped wondering and have decided to live in a land of amazement instead. Life's rich pageant and all that.
The best thing that Trump could have done for this country over the next four years is nothing. That would have been the best optimal outcome of his electoral success. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. While I doubt he will succeed in most of the more egregious policies he made during the election season, the seemingly small things like this will add up and cause more damage than the sum of their parts might suggest.
2
Let's also talk about the threat to freedom of speech. Internet service providers could legally block websites that they don't approve of, or make it slower or more expensive for you to read them, which would limit the visibility of those websites (and possibly drive them out of business altogether). Why would they do this? To serve their own interests ... or the interests of someone who's paying them on the side.
So this is a major turning point for the U.S. -- political as well as economic. Under net neutrality, the broadband companies provide the infrastructure of our open society. Without it, they will be granted the ability to use their monopoly power over discourse and data transmission just as the most venal government would, for their own interests and without oversight or transparency. Fight this!
So this is a major turning point for the U.S. -- political as well as economic. Under net neutrality, the broadband companies provide the infrastructure of our open society. Without it, they will be granted the ability to use their monopoly power over discourse and data transmission just as the most venal government would, for their own interests and without oversight or transparency. Fight this!
11
Yup. Give Faux news the fast lane and throttle NYT and Pro Publica and NPR. It will happen.
3
Once again, we have to stand up and fight for ourselves. I just hope people realize how important this is. Thank you Tim and please continue to help us keep this on the public's conscience.
2
I watch netflix. But netflix and other streaming video services do require a lot of broadband. It's something I think that they should pay more for and pass the cost on to their companies.
Net neutrality also makes it possible to cram news (and other) sites with pop-ups and annoying videos that interfere with my ability to read the news. The advertisers should pay more for that.
Yes, we do need regulations to ensure that there is a low-cost track that makes it feasible for everyone to access e-mail and things like google maps. However, people who want access to streaming video and music anywhere anytime should pay for it. Moreover, net neutrality also means on some services and advertisers get a free ride.
Net neutrality also makes it possible to cram news (and other) sites with pop-ups and annoying videos that interfere with my ability to read the news. The advertisers should pay more for that.
Yes, we do need regulations to ensure that there is a low-cost track that makes it feasible for everyone to access e-mail and things like google maps. However, people who want access to streaming video and music anywhere anytime should pay for it. Moreover, net neutrality also means on some services and advertisers get a free ride.
1
When I pay my service provider extra for 100 Mbps down that is what I want regardless of whether I am streaming netflix or hulu or anything.
2
In NY, municipalities earn "rent" on utility rights of way through cable franchise fees, which are paid ONLY on traditional cable television services. Poles may carry any number of wire services, but cable television pays for the route. It may seem an obscure point, but 'information' services, which ride on regular internet connections, ride rent free. This includes video service delivered over the net.
In a net-neutral world, a carrier couldn't differentiate a product delivered as video-over-the-net. That's why cable TV persists. But without net neutrality, the carriers would prefer to shift their video service to the net. Doing so can reduce the carrier's own costs and still differentiate their service by controlling how much their video competition pays for access. The overlooked point is that killing net neutrality turns a municipal tax into increased carrier revenue by eliminating cable franchise fees and increasing connection revenue. The carrier would be usurping the right of way and associated revenues from the towns and cities.
In a net-neutral world, a carrier couldn't differentiate a product delivered as video-over-the-net. That's why cable TV persists. But without net neutrality, the carriers would prefer to shift their video service to the net. Doing so can reduce the carrier's own costs and still differentiate their service by controlling how much their video competition pays for access. The overlooked point is that killing net neutrality turns a municipal tax into increased carrier revenue by eliminating cable franchise fees and increasing connection revenue. The carrier would be usurping the right of way and associated revenues from the towns and cities.
2
The big companies simply need to be managed as utilities or they should be broken up.
They should be aware that as they deploy their monopolies to their private advantage, they risk the public's ire.
They should be aware that as they deploy their monopolies to their private advantage, they risk the public's ire.
4
It may be "inconsistent with any populist mandate" but it is consistent with Trump and his cronies. You can be certain that any legislation that comes out of this administration will favor the powerful and the rich, giving them more power to become richer. Trump supporters might not have voted for higher cable bills, but that is exactly what they are going to get (along with less service and fewer choices). Welcome to trumpland.
3
This is a difficult subject - both sides have compelling arguments. All I know is that I do not have enough options for a broadband internet connection.
1
Taxpayers built the internet with their money in research labs all over the nation over the last 50 years. I see no reason why we would give it away to private companies now. They will only use it to strip more money our of our pockets and make themselves filthy rich, and create limits to our access. Why would we ant to do that to ourselves?
5
Mr. Pai is right wing fanatic who views the world as a flea market.
Still, just say no. The garbage on cable is obvious. Turn it off.
Still, just say no. The garbage on cable is obvious. Turn it off.
1
Did Trump voters vote for higher cable bills?
Well, yes some did. there are a lot of Republicans who believe rent-taking is a Constitutional right and that regulations are evil.
And there are some who believe that unregulated means cheaper. They don't understand the concept of either natural monopolies - those that exist because infrastructure is expensive, or protected monopolies - those that exist because governments choose a provider, When AT&T had to allow other service providers to use the lines, long distance prices decreased.
And there are some who have never heard of the issue and won't know why their cable bills are sky high.
We are not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people., which was likely the driving force of populism. We are a government of corporate shills and branding experts.
Well, yes some did. there are a lot of Republicans who believe rent-taking is a Constitutional right and that regulations are evil.
And there are some who believe that unregulated means cheaper. They don't understand the concept of either natural monopolies - those that exist because infrastructure is expensive, or protected monopolies - those that exist because governments choose a provider, When AT&T had to allow other service providers to use the lines, long distance prices decreased.
And there are some who have never heard of the issue and won't know why their cable bills are sky high.
We are not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people., which was likely the driving force of populism. We are a government of corporate shills and branding experts.
3
I doubt this is a punishment of Hollywood as much as a reward to Republican campaign contributors. In an interview last night, Mr. Pai said that there had been very few violations of net neutrality before the rules went in, so he doubted the rules were necessary. But why would it be necessary to repeal them unless future violations were intended? We don't need to know what the giant ISP's have in mind, just that all that money was spent for a reason.
Since most ISPs are still virtual monopolies, only government regulation prevents their abuse of the system.
Since most ISPs are still virtual monopolies, only government regulation prevents their abuse of the system.
224
If you don't believe this is a punishment for the great state of CA, then you do not know the GOP or d trump very well. When the department of war downsizing meant base closures in the reagan years, the bases in CA bore the brunt of it. It took quite awhile for us to bounce back. Trump has always had revenge as a motivation, in business and now in the presidency. The GOP continues to hate CA-- they take our federal tax contributions, but punish us any chance they get. So they will support this, regardless of its unpopularity with even their own base.
1
Why should ATT be regulated communications utility when it provides me with voice service but an unregulated content provider when it provides me with internet service?
When it comes to the phone, no one tells us who we are allowed to call or what we can say. In regard to electricity they don't tell us what we can power and what we can't.
That's how it needs to be with the internet. People put out whatever they want and you read and watch what you want.
That's how it needs to be with the internet. People put out whatever they want and you read and watch what you want.
10
The profit motive, that is, extracting more money from the same customers for the same service is what is at work here.
"It would be a real shame if your website started getting really slow to load. We can give your site priority for the low, low, price of a zillion more dollars."
"It would be a real shame if your website started getting really slow to load. We can give your site priority for the low, low, price of a zillion more dollars."
32
Big Money has been trying to monetize the internet since the browser "Mosaic" became popular. The Web blindsided Big Money while it basked in its pipeline, cable TV and cellphone coups. It is still working on a better way to monetize GPS and would monetize punctuation and the very air we breath if it could just find a way.
15
The idea that the internet is not a utility -- given that it is now the backbone of communication in this country -- is ridiculous. It needs to be REGULATED BY THE GOVERNEMENT (OF THE PEOPLE) so that people from different levels of society can have equal access, and so that the information shared on it will not be unfairly used -- for a start. By denying these principles, Trump is awarding his fat cat cronies an unfair advantage on what has until now been an open platform, and jeopardizing the privacy and security of everyone who uses it. Welcome to Dystopia!
98
Did Trump voters vote for this? The short answer is yes. Stupid people do stupid things. This is just a simple reality of life.
107
Trump grew up without rules or regulations. He now brings that hedonism to the government. Having never behaved by the rules, having never learned the value of regulation he is out to break all of them.
The trouble is (for him, and now for us) that rules and regulations are there for a reason (in most cases). Net-neutrality is one. Health care is another. Environmental and safety regulations are a third. Blind trust in capitalism and markets without rules is madness. The country will need to spend many years correcting the troubles his de-regulatory fervor has produced.
The trouble is (for him, and now for us) that rules and regulations are there for a reason (in most cases). Net-neutrality is one. Health care is another. Environmental and safety regulations are a third. Blind trust in capitalism and markets without rules is madness. The country will need to spend many years correcting the troubles his de-regulatory fervor has produced.
50
When the only tools the Republicans have are "free markets" and "deregulation" - which in theory lead to lower prices, better service, and innovation - these are all thwarted to deliver monopoly power to political campaign contributors and corporate lobbyists to maximize profits.
Beside phones, the impact of this is what we live with in America. The consequences are everywhere: healthcare, airlines, sports, banking, education, etc. Genuine competition hardly exists in many things Americans spend most of their money on. Competition in rigged markets, and the political system above all, is neither competition nor freedom.
Beside phones, the impact of this is what we live with in America. The consequences are everywhere: healthcare, airlines, sports, banking, education, etc. Genuine competition hardly exists in many things Americans spend most of their money on. Competition in rigged markets, and the political system above all, is neither competition nor freedom.
13
As with healthcare, Americans pay far more for far less. I was surprised by how much less I paid for internet as well as my mobile phone when I moved to England. It is time to think of the internet as an essential utility that should not be left to the vagaries of a few companies that control the market.
72
The party who eliminates net neutrality risks incurring the wrath of the millennials. That should be entertaining.
6
Whilst the US is heralded around the world as the land of fierce competition that improves quality and drives cost down, in these days of 'shareholder value' the opposite is true.
It is time to call the lobbying that is happening in Washington what it truly is; corruption. Most politicians in the US are hopelessly corrupt and cannot be expected to create solid policy.
It is time to call the lobbying that is happening in Washington what it truly is; corruption. Most politicians in the US are hopelessly corrupt and cannot be expected to create solid policy.
30
I'm trying to figure out how my cable bill goes up without net neutrality. I've watched over the years the cost of broadband falling per Megabit of speed.
Same goes for cell phone data plans.
What didn't get cheaper, and the reason I cut the cord, was TV packages and those costs are being driven by the big content companies like DIsney. Net neutrality won't make ESPN cheaper.
Same goes for cell phone data plans.
What didn't get cheaper, and the reason I cut the cord, was TV packages and those costs are being driven by the big content companies like DIsney. Net neutrality won't make ESPN cheaper.
12
This is nothing new. It is the continuation of privatizing everything .
The right wing ( the protectors of the ''free'' market ) continue to promote socialist policies. They want the government to regulate their guaranteed profits and reduce any risks. It is that simple.
It is for education ( charter schools ), health care, the military and on and on.
The right wing ( the protectors of the ''free'' market ) continue to promote socialist policies. They want the government to regulate their guaranteed profits and reduce any risks. It is that simple.
It is for education ( charter schools ), health care, the military and on and on.
79
Americans pay FAR too much already for cable tv. When I hear the average bill for each household is always over $150 per month, I shudder to think of how uncompetitive it is with France where the average bill is €39 per month for tv, telephone and wifi including unlimited international calling. Whats wrong with this picture?
172
Mike, in case you are wondering, in the US, $39 per month will get you local phone service on a copper wire landline with local calling in a 20 mile radius. It goes up from there. Cord cutting? Well you'll need to pay at least $75 per month to your ISP, and if you're lucky, you'll have 2 ISPs to choose from. US options stink.
1
What's wrong with this picture? The same thing that's wrong with the predatory big pharma and healthcare extortion industry that makes people in the US pay 2-3X for the same drugs and services. Without regulation the "free market" controlled by a few mega companies sticks a gun to the captive consumer's head and charges whatever it can, and it can charge bigtime under the anti-competitive conditions that exist for essential services in the US and that are being even further exacerbated by the Trump administration and the repugnantklan party. Welcome to the guilded age of robber barons part deux.
Same thing that's wrong with healthcare.
The internet has been a disaster. Cyberwarfare threatens our democracy and has enabled new forms of criminal behavior. Terrorists use social media to recruit fanatics while bots, enemy military, and criminal gangs spread vicious hateful propaganda and misinformation.
Having a few interersting TV shows are not worth all this conflict and discord. Allow net neutrality or not... it doesn't really matter to me. The internet has already destroyed civil society.
Having a few interersting TV shows are not worth all this conflict and discord. Allow net neutrality or not... it doesn't really matter to me. The internet has already destroyed civil society.
2
"The internet has already destroyed civil society."
And yet here you are, expressing yourself on the internet! Maybe you need to give the issue further consideration.
And yet here you are, expressing yourself on the internet! Maybe you need to give the issue further consideration.
THE NYPD, by editing when and how their body webcams are used, may be going beyond giving police "discretionary" authority that violates the free speech rights of citizens during encounters with the police. In other words, while the cams may contain evidence of citizens' claims expressed in their communications, the police are, ipso facto, suppressing exculpatory evidence. I believe, therefore, that giving police the authority of prior censorship over the free speech of citizens is unconstitutional. If, by contrast, the speech of the citizen is not protected, then its presence on the record is important information that could be deleted, if police are given this apparently unconstitutional censorship of protected free speech.
The diversionary tactics of the current administration are outstanding. Trying to keep up with all the ways big and small that they are hurting the middle class and below is a full time job and even the media can't keep up.
178
Look - over here - we're about to attack North Korea! No, over here - we're about to kill Obamacare - again!
Meanwhile, the grand theft continues to accelerate. Man, doesn't all this winning feel great?
Meanwhile, the grand theft continues to accelerate. Man, doesn't all this winning feel great?
276
Like the majority of Americans, I didn't vote for him. We could see this coming...
3