As usual, those of us in rural areas will be shortchanged. For nearly all of us there is NO competition. One cable company serves entire communities, sometimes several communities. They can "adjust" their prices yearly and do so with great gusto. This means that residents in metropolitan areas get the great deals and we don't. Competition is rural areas is a joke.
29
The end product is the gleaning of every last nickel from every last person. What happens after that is unimportant.
12
This is the sort of arcane issue that Trump's base know nothing about, and they'll cheer Mr. Ajit Pai (though, true to their own base instincts, they will trip over the name, and ponder whether he is Muslim). They'll also look puzzled by the charge that free transfer of information is threatened--but then they'll remember that they don't much care about information, anyway, and don't much care to understand it. And the Republican congressMEN? Having decided that the devil nearby is better than devils far away, they'll obediently vote against free transfer of information--knowing, conveniently, that they have received, and will receive, helpful contributions from the companies that will cash in as consumer protections fall. And Mr. Spin will trumpet its passage as another sign of his Keeping Faith, and producing the benefits he promised all along.
16
The fact that the American people tolerate these sort of cash and power-grabs is sickening.
Trump voters get duped yet again.
Trump voters get duped yet again.
25
What the average Trump appointee and his corporate supporters mean by "freedom" nowadays is freedom to beggar thy neighbor.
19
Freedom isn't delivered thru regulation. Freedom isn't delivered via government. Freedom isn't delivered because of government control. All three things lead to enslavement, and the tyranny of the mob.
If you want freedom, the only way to get it, is to get government out of the marketplace. Will Comcast/Verizon/Cox/AT&T take advantage of fewer government regulations? Absolutely - right up until one of them, wants one of the others' customers, or wants to make more sales. Kind of like how OPEC got stymied by the other oil producers. History is replete with many examples of groups of businesses ganging together to control their industries, and failing.
The price of kerosene dropped from 1850 thru 1900, even though Standard Oil in America became the dominant player (not the only one) in the US. Consumers got cheaper lighting and heating as a result. Regulation only ever increases prices for consumers. Net Neutrality has not caused your internet access prices to drop. It never will.
Remove Net Neutrality. Give us freedom in the marketplace. Or admit that you're a Socialist who believes choking businesses is better than letting them be free.
If you want freedom, the only way to get it, is to get government out of the marketplace. Will Comcast/Verizon/Cox/AT&T take advantage of fewer government regulations? Absolutely - right up until one of them, wants one of the others' customers, or wants to make more sales. Kind of like how OPEC got stymied by the other oil producers. History is replete with many examples of groups of businesses ganging together to control their industries, and failing.
The price of kerosene dropped from 1850 thru 1900, even though Standard Oil in America became the dominant player (not the only one) in the US. Consumers got cheaper lighting and heating as a result. Regulation only ever increases prices for consumers. Net Neutrality has not caused your internet access prices to drop. It never will.
Remove Net Neutrality. Give us freedom in the marketplace. Or admit that you're a Socialist who believes choking businesses is better than letting them be free.
4
The two most destructive forces ever unleashed on this planet are courtesy of humans--profit motive and religion. Not necessarily in that order. Neither of them has ever done anything useful for the species, though they are warmly loved by the vicious. Assuming that everything in existence needs to have a price affixed to it certainly doesn't establish us as the highest form of life on the planet. Of course, neither do nuclear weapons. Come to think of it, I can't see anything that does.
17
The US pays double what the rest of the world does for speed that doesn't even make the top 20.
"Going bankrupt from medical bills", even with insurance, is also a thing in the good ol' USA, and now, our ISP's spy on us while we surf (well, crawl) the web.
In short, I strongly suspect "net neutrality" is not enough to fix the base problem here, while it's absence will spell just another way that corporations milk us.
"Going bankrupt from medical bills", even with insurance, is also a thing in the good ol' USA, and now, our ISP's spy on us while we surf (well, crawl) the web.
In short, I strongly suspect "net neutrality" is not enough to fix the base problem here, while it's absence will spell just another way that corporations milk us.
19
I'm sure reporting violations of pledges to consumers would prove just as effective as reporting that a telemarketer ignored the fact that you're on the Do Not Call registry.
12
In the legends, a vampire cannot enter any house uninvited. And yet, over and over, we invite the vampires in, attracted by their stories of need or idealism or affirmation, or by their promises of wealth and happiness. The stories are always plausible and offer immediate gratification, but ultimately serve only the vampire.
Thus it is with the avarice of the powerful. Once they are invited to a seat of honour in the parlor, and we serve them tea and cookies, they will take over the house for themselves and it becomes near-impossible to evict them.
We have invited Trump, and he in turn has invited rapacious vampire friends like Pai, unwanted guests who will refuse to leave until they have drained the last drop of our substance and abandoned the empty husks of those who were once their hosts.
Thus it is with the avarice of the powerful. Once they are invited to a seat of honour in the parlor, and we serve them tea and cookies, they will take over the house for themselves and it becomes near-impossible to evict them.
We have invited Trump, and he in turn has invited rapacious vampire friends like Pai, unwanted guests who will refuse to leave until they have drained the last drop of our substance and abandoned the empty husks of those who were once their hosts.
20
Looks like we need the telecom equivalent of Sarbanes-Oxley. Get the ISP's out of the content business altogether, and let them compete on bandwidth. Any other way you cut it, the consumer loses.
10
There has been an increasing trend toward larger firms, with M&A activity resulting in ever bigger conglomerates. In itself, no bad. When taken to extremes, however, it results in oligopolistic markets. A couple of firms with large enough market shares to control prices.
We're already there, with cable/internet. Cable companies like Comcast and their brethren, see the shift toward selective content rather than packages of useless content, shoved down consumers' throats. Hence their position on neutrality. I am contracted for some 150 channels. What do I watch? When I chose to, there are three TV series on Netflix or Hulu, on demand.
One day, soon, I'll drop the comcast content offering in favor of "my choice" content. I mean, really, do I need to pay $8 a month for local access TV, that I never watch? Or $15 a month for HBO, that I never watch?
We're already there, with cable/internet. Cable companies like Comcast and their brethren, see the shift toward selective content rather than packages of useless content, shoved down consumers' throats. Hence their position on neutrality. I am contracted for some 150 channels. What do I watch? When I chose to, there are three TV series on Netflix or Hulu, on demand.
One day, soon, I'll drop the comcast content offering in favor of "my choice" content. I mean, really, do I need to pay $8 a month for local access TV, that I never watch? Or $15 a month for HBO, that I never watch?
3
Internet access is not just another commodity product like automobiles, washing machines, or even smartphones. The utility and ubiquity of Internet access for so many indispensable aspects of our lives means that ensuring fair and equal access must be regarded as an infrastructure issue rather than simply a private industry issue. Purely market-based approaches to Internet regulations are not appropriate, neither ethically nor economically.
19
The internet has become a utility in my opinion and should be regulated as such.
23
Editors: I remind you...that the citizens of the USA....own the airwaves;
Ergo...the US Citizens control what license they would have on communication.
Not YOU....Not The President; but it is those in the US Congress who represent
YOU and ME and Millions of US citizens...
and I for ONE...say there should be a form of license on what can be broadcast; and what can be received....MY CHOICE....through my representative...
And I for ONE say....what I print here ...may be permitted by YOU the media
to be broadcast..Amen..
Ergo...the US Citizens control what license they would have on communication.
Not YOU....Not The President; but it is those in the US Congress who represent
YOU and ME and Millions of US citizens...
and I for ONE...say there should be a form of license on what can be broadcast; and what can be received....MY CHOICE....through my representative...
And I for ONE say....what I print here ...may be permitted by YOU the media
to be broadcast..Amen..
7
That's the GOP for you; Calling it freedom when it's going to kill something, like healthcare 'reform'.
16
Tell me again, which swamp was Trump going to drain?
13
What bothers me hasn't been discussed. Data ownership. When I order a sports bra, is my size up for grabs to the highest bidder? Will it appear as an ad on the screen? That has happened once. But sports bras are not really important compared to data mining for political reasons, drug ads, and even more personal information. What gives my Internet provider the right to profit from all those cookies dancing around in the cybersphere? That information is not meant for buying or selling. It is a matter of privacy versus profit.
When I post something on Facebook, I expect that will not remain private. When I send a message to my doctor, my pharmacy or my senators, how much of that is personal and private? I'd guess the first two aren't intended to be bought or sold. Letters to a senator could very well be used; I don't like it, but I understand why. Letters to the NYT are not private and aren't meant to be. I think some regulation is needed here. The regulation must be carefully assigned. Data is not all of one type. Distinctions must be made.
When I post something on Facebook, I expect that will not remain private. When I send a message to my doctor, my pharmacy or my senators, how much of that is personal and private? I'd guess the first two aren't intended to be bought or sold. Letters to a senator could very well be used; I don't like it, but I understand why. Letters to the NYT are not private and aren't meant to be. I think some regulation is needed here. The regulation must be carefully assigned. Data is not all of one type. Distinctions must be made.
8
Just the simple act of registering to vote leaves a trail of your information online, including age and address and party identification for any who cares to find it.
Same with driver's license and other legal documentation.
Same with driver's license and other legal documentation.
3
I would like to own my own data history. Why can it be bought and sold a thousand times by companies using it for their own profits, without them ever having to pay me one direct penny for what I contributed to it?
If the market has established that my online history has monetary value, why am I not entitled to a share? Why are the collecting companies the sole owners?
If I write a book using Microsoft Word and publish it as an Amazon Kindle, the copyright is still mine to sell, not Microsoft's or Amazon's. Why does my unique record of online activity belong only to the parties at the other end of these transactions?
There's an expression, "If you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product." Perhaps if we had a share in our data ownership, and earned a fraction of a penny each time it was sold, our online world would look a bit different. No "free service" is ever really free. Let's make all the payments transparent and in cash, not in stealthy, self-serving lures of "free" goods.
If the market has established that my online history has monetary value, why am I not entitled to a share? Why are the collecting companies the sole owners?
If I write a book using Microsoft Word and publish it as an Amazon Kindle, the copyright is still mine to sell, not Microsoft's or Amazon's. Why does my unique record of online activity belong only to the parties at the other end of these transactions?
There's an expression, "If you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product." Perhaps if we had a share in our data ownership, and earned a fraction of a penny each time it was sold, our online world would look a bit different. No "free service" is ever really free. Let's make all the payments transparent and in cash, not in stealthy, self-serving lures of "free" goods.
7
Pai is the poodle of the paymasters. It is a shame and disgrace that he is using his position to help the paymasters get fatter. He used to work for Verizon and well connected with the large companies. Pai's proposal was written by them. How does he sleep at night? He may be a darling of the crooks. But he is a disgrace to lead the agency which is supposed to protect us the citizens.
17
"Ultimately, though, the real losers will be all Americans, because there will be fewer choices and less innovation."
I think part of the problem is right there in that sentence. The real losers won't just be Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Internet a global phenomenon? I know the American mindset is to think of everything important as American, and everything not American as unimportant, but isn't this particular slice of arrogance a bit over-the-top?
The truth is, turning the Internet over to a small handful of huge corporations will do the same thing to the Internet that has been done to American media. It's a fact that 90% of media outlets in this country are owned by a total of six corporations. That means, TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, radio--everything that ain't the Internet. Now just look at the state of American media. It's not called "post-truth" for nothing, and sorry, but Trump didn't invent it--neither did Bannon. Those six corporations did. Given the extent to which the media infected the election--not as much as Russia, of course, but they didn't have as much at stake, either--and the outcome because of it, let's just say if you'd like the Kardashians to be your next ruling dynasty, you'll love Ajit Pai's ideas for the Internet. If you think news is fake now, wait till you get a load of what half a dozen corporations will do to it on the Internet.
I think part of the problem is right there in that sentence. The real losers won't just be Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Internet a global phenomenon? I know the American mindset is to think of everything important as American, and everything not American as unimportant, but isn't this particular slice of arrogance a bit over-the-top?
The truth is, turning the Internet over to a small handful of huge corporations will do the same thing to the Internet that has been done to American media. It's a fact that 90% of media outlets in this country are owned by a total of six corporations. That means, TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, radio--everything that ain't the Internet. Now just look at the state of American media. It's not called "post-truth" for nothing, and sorry, but Trump didn't invent it--neither did Bannon. Those six corporations did. Given the extent to which the media infected the election--not as much as Russia, of course, but they didn't have as much at stake, either--and the outcome because of it, let's just say if you'd like the Kardashians to be your next ruling dynasty, you'll love Ajit Pai's ideas for the Internet. If you think news is fake now, wait till you get a load of what half a dozen corporations will do to it on the Internet.
10
The Times and I disagree about nearly everything. I am a small government, libertarian kind of guy and the Times’ editorial staff would like to regulate how a person breathes. However, in this case we are a hundred percent on the same page.
The Internet is part of the infrastructure of our country. As such, much like last century’s ‘new’ technological infrastructure advancement (telephones), it needs to be treated differently than non-essential business markets. For example, last month Congress voted to allow broadband providers to record, retain and use their customers’ Internet usage. This is akin to allowing the phone companies to ‘tap’ all your phone calls and use whatever you say for marketing purposes. It is that simple. After all the obfuscation is cleared away, we just allowed Congress to allow our broadband providers to track and use everything we do on the Internet every single minute of the day.
Crazy.
Now Congress wants providers to be able to ‘censor’ traffic. Because that is what we are talking about here. If my company cannot pay off the providers, they will throttle my traffic. Which means they can selectively kill Internet businesses.
You cannot treat something as invasive as the Internet like any other business. The regulations (or the removal of regulations) that Congress is voting on right now are necessary. I do not want Verizon tracking my every movement nor deciding what I can view on my TV. It is asinine to allow companies to have that kind of power.
The Internet is part of the infrastructure of our country. As such, much like last century’s ‘new’ technological infrastructure advancement (telephones), it needs to be treated differently than non-essential business markets. For example, last month Congress voted to allow broadband providers to record, retain and use their customers’ Internet usage. This is akin to allowing the phone companies to ‘tap’ all your phone calls and use whatever you say for marketing purposes. It is that simple. After all the obfuscation is cleared away, we just allowed Congress to allow our broadband providers to track and use everything we do on the Internet every single minute of the day.
Crazy.
Now Congress wants providers to be able to ‘censor’ traffic. Because that is what we are talking about here. If my company cannot pay off the providers, they will throttle my traffic. Which means they can selectively kill Internet businesses.
You cannot treat something as invasive as the Internet like any other business. The regulations (or the removal of regulations) that Congress is voting on right now are necessary. I do not want Verizon tracking my every movement nor deciding what I can view on my TV. It is asinine to allow companies to have that kind of power.
20
I wonder if all those rural Trump voters realize that this is going to make their internet bills go up. Are you tired of winning yet?
13
I have a great idea. Why don't we deregulate the power companies so they can provide better service. They could provide their customers with special electrical appliances that would only work on the power cycle they generate, charge extra for remote customers, and periodically shut the power done for customers who weren't spending enough. If it is good for improving the internet just think what we could do for the delivery of electricity.
20
You need to be Secretary of Energy. You're definitely qualified.
7
This is about far more than competition and who gets the bucks. It's about the control of information.
Corporate control of the flow of information is a step toward fascism.
Corporate control of the flow of information is a step toward fascism.
28
We've already stepped into it.
4
Do not forget that he was one of Verizon's top lawyers for a few years during the Bush administration
18
This is a silly editorial. Doesn't the NYT editorial board understand capitalism? (always tending towards monopoly, always reaching to control the supposedly "democratic" government that might keep its grasp in check)
8
You obviously have no understanding of localized monopolies nor of businesses that provide infrastructure services and how those two factors effect capitalistic theory.
6
For those who are interested, you can go on the FCC page (for now) and email your thoughts to Mr. Pai directly.
11
What Pai is showing is a Trump administration that is, at heart, a rent-seeking operation, just like Trump's businesses. Ending net neutrality will increase the monopolistic power of the big ISPs, as well a softer approach to anti-trust. Perhaps most indicative is Pai's efforts to kill the Obama-drafted regulation to allow people to buy their own set-top boxes. It's a commodity, so what justification is there for cable companies to own and require you to rent theirs? It's all making money through rent-seeking, not innovation.
21
We the people are at the mercy of this decision, just as we are of the congress to let them sell off our privacy.
10
The delusion of "voluntary commitments from the industry." is similar to the trickle down effect of Reaganomics, it NEVER happened. The greed is sitting in the seat of power. Mr. Pai is merely another pawn of the multinational ISPs.
You will notice there is nothing said about fiber optic speed, yet the cost remains the same. Mr. Pai should write a book entitled, "I killed the internet in 3 easy steps..."
You will notice there is nothing said about fiber optic speed, yet the cost remains the same. Mr. Pai should write a book entitled, "I killed the internet in 3 easy steps..."
11
This editorial contorts so many facts it looks like it was written by a liberal version of Kellyanne Conway. First, Tom Wheeler never wanted to exert heavy regulatory oversight on the web...that idea came from his boss, President Obama, who overrode his supposedly independent commissioner in an effort to appease his campaign contributors in Silicon Valley. This leads to the second fact, which is that the entire "Net Neutrality" movement had nothing to do with protecting smaller websites but with protecting Netflix and Google's You Tube from being hit with additional usage charges for the massive amount of bandwidth they chew up at peak hours."Net Neutrality" was a classic effort by favored political players to use the regulatory apparatus to shift costs from them to other less favored players. Google, whose senior executives had basically unrestricted access to the Obama White House, was behaving like a 19th Century monopolist...which was appropriate as the regulatory apparatus President Obama imposed on the web had its roots in 19th Century railroad regulation. By returning to a market based system web resources will be attributed more fairly, with big players like Netflix paying their fair share. Perhaps some day the Times will find some time between its investigations of Fox News and its hyperbolic coverage of the Trump Administration to look into the connections between monopolies like Facebook and Google and the Obama Administration.
4
Right because no WH is ever lobbied by their bigger donors.
This is the reality, every new Admin allows access to the WH to those who pay the most, or offer the best perks for that access. The Trump WH is no different, except that now the main lobbyists are in the presidents inner circle of Family. So those with the most access, are already inside, and dont need to pay to play, they just show up for their made-up jobs. "Hi dad, can we talk about something?"
Facebook is not a traditional monopoly, as it doesnt actually offer anything that is a necessity. No one or business is gonna fail if Facebook suddenly charges exorbitant fees, or behaves improperly...as no one truly needs Facebook. Unlike electricity, water, actual telecommunication networks, etc...
This is the reality, every new Admin allows access to the WH to those who pay the most, or offer the best perks for that access. The Trump WH is no different, except that now the main lobbyists are in the presidents inner circle of Family. So those with the most access, are already inside, and dont need to pay to play, they just show up for their made-up jobs. "Hi dad, can we talk about something?"
Facebook is not a traditional monopoly, as it doesnt actually offer anything that is a necessity. No one or business is gonna fail if Facebook suddenly charges exorbitant fees, or behaves improperly...as no one truly needs Facebook. Unlike electricity, water, actual telecommunication networks, etc...
1
Basically, this comment rings true, especially with regard to "net neutrality." It's a nice soundbite, kudo's to whomever came up with it. But, basically, high bandwidth companies like Netflix and Youtube are trying to avoid paying for the bandwidth they use, and are trying to shift costs in a manner which benefits themselves, at the expense of everyone else.
The Times needs to do a bit more homework on this issue.
The Times needs to do a bit more homework on this issue.
Unfortunately, the free market does not benefit consumers when it comes to utilities, and of course, healthcare. And at this point, internet access is a utility. Having lived in California and seeing my electrical bills increase by massive percentages due to the whole Enron debacle, I have direct experience. While for profit can result in improved efficiency in some areas, when it comes to things like electricity, healthcare, water (this will be a BIG issue!), sewage, and yes, internet, it does not tend to do so.
3
The primary tyrant that we face today is Donald Trump, front man for the extreme right wing Republican Party.
Trump like other despots including Hitler discredits his critics from the press who call him out for his hateful and violent speech. This became a part of the narrative of the 1930’s in Germany and we are at risk of repeating history in the United States.
An open internet will be one of the most important tools for fighting against suppression of truth and its replacement with Alternate Facts. Trumpians are already planning to abandon net neutrality and turn the internet into a Breitbart equivalent. Trump and his right hand man Pai want to control the flow of information - the key to creating a fascist state. Fight for Net Neutrality.
Trump like other despots including Hitler discredits his critics from the press who call him out for his hateful and violent speech. This became a part of the narrative of the 1930’s in Germany and we are at risk of repeating history in the United States.
An open internet will be one of the most important tools for fighting against suppression of truth and its replacement with Alternate Facts. Trumpians are already planning to abandon net neutrality and turn the internet into a Breitbart equivalent. Trump and his right hand man Pai want to control the flow of information - the key to creating a fascist state. Fight for Net Neutrality.
20
This is what dictators DO. This is what Trump has done for 100 days. He has no clue how to work with the elected national legislature, but he sure knows how to appoint those who execute his commands.
11
And Obama did what crony capitalists always do and what he did for eight years...use the regulatory apparatus to reward friends like Elon Musk and Google and punish enemies like the banks and the telecom companies. I have no idea what Trump will do over the next few years but at least in this case Chairman Pai is taking away control of the web from Washington and returning it to the market.
Propaganda and lies are all we will get from Trump appointees. That's why he picked them. Trump is constructing his own swamp.
8
The "freedom" Mr. Pai is talking about is the "freedom" for the powerful to take advantage, subjugate, and "fleece" the less powerful.
This admin is trying to crush The People of The United States under foot.
This admin is trying to crush The People of The United States under foot.
12
Trump does not have the capability or just doesn't care about fully understanding the implications of his policies. There are always pros and cons. Trump has shown a pattern of asking large business owners 'what do you want' and acting accordingly. They should have a voice, and Obama did marginalized them. But they can not be the only voice.
In this case, the large ISPs are salivating at the prospect of another revenue stream which is 100% profit and doesn't show up in customers already 'oligopoly priced' bills. Given their profitability and low interest rates, of course they can make investments. Would this change increase their investments? Yes, but marginally: There must be a few projects that would become profitable at a higher level of return. But there is no consideration of the smaller (and future) businesses that would be stifled. (They're not potential near term 'mega donors'.) I'd bet that would far outweigh any marginal increased economic activity by ISPs. But Trump is making a decision, as always, based on what's good for him.
In this case, the large ISPs are salivating at the prospect of another revenue stream which is 100% profit and doesn't show up in customers already 'oligopoly priced' bills. Given their profitability and low interest rates, of course they can make investments. Would this change increase their investments? Yes, but marginally: There must be a few projects that would become profitable at a higher level of return. But there is no consideration of the smaller (and future) businesses that would be stifled. (They're not potential near term 'mega donors'.) I'd bet that would far outweigh any marginal increased economic activity by ISPs. But Trump is making a decision, as always, based on what's good for him.
6
We elected Trump. Now we live with the consequences. Compared with some of the others--environment, Supreme Court, for instance. This outrage, while still egregious, is a lesser deal.
1
The ISPs should be regulated to deliver broadband internet access nationwide, much the same way AT&T was regulated to provide universal telephone access at the turn of the last century. In order for democracy to flourish, we all need equal access to the utilities that foster democracy.
10
Throwing out net neutrality is a very dangerous prospect for all us and effectively removes the Referee from the playing field and allows for unabashed bullying by the large telecom providers to tilt the field in their favor.
We need a referee on the field to blow the whistle when a large ISP starts to throttle and slow down the small startup that is trying to make it in the big leagues with the likes of Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, etc. Without some basic framework and oversight it will be game over for the consumer and small guy. Competition is stifled and we all lose.
We need a referee on the field to blow the whistle when a large ISP starts to throttle and slow down the small startup that is trying to make it in the big leagues with the likes of Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, etc. Without some basic framework and oversight it will be game over for the consumer and small guy. Competition is stifled and we all lose.
7
ummm... btw, Pai, whom you call an "anti-regulation idealogue appointed by President Trump" was actually appointed to the FCC by President Obama. He was name Chair by Trump. Just fact checking
2
My building no longer has a functioning master antennae, my cable triple play with one premium is about 200 dollars. My new cable provider through acquisition Spectrum will not negotiate with me on price as Time Warner would., Any other source of another provider through wires must be approved by my landlord.
Any System which relies on a voluntary compliance is highly suspect. If any thing that wall st and the banks has taught us is that fines just make bad behavior just a numbers game. Grocery stores or any other seller do not make payment voluntary for obvious reasons.
This is just another attempt to control information and for profit and influence. This will reduce choice and scuttle start ups and exert influence in other ways that are unseen. Deregulation this case is a form of censorship not freedom of anything.
Any System which relies on a voluntary compliance is highly suspect. If any thing that wall st and the banks has taught us is that fines just make bad behavior just a numbers game. Grocery stores or any other seller do not make payment voluntary for obvious reasons.
This is just another attempt to control information and for profit and influence. This will reduce choice and scuttle start ups and exert influence in other ways that are unseen. Deregulation this case is a form of censorship not freedom of anything.
11
Thomas Wheeler stood up to the Telecommunications industry; which wasn't expected, because he came from there. He understood what was good for consumers was bad for profits at the ISPs in the short term.
Not that they are hurting. Comcast in some quarters generates profit margins of 90 and 95% in their Broadband division. American ISPs invest in new network infrastructure, but they under-invest compared to the rest of the developed industrial nations. Instead the money goes to advertising and buying content companies.
The network neutrality doctrine forces ISP's to build up their networks. You can't meet the bandwidth demand generated without it. It's the "club" consumers have to force Telecom to do it. Take that away, and budgets to network engineering will dry up. If Mr Pai prevails, we'll see broadband fees go up, while the speed and bandwidth of US broadband stalls and degrades.
Not that they are hurting. Comcast in some quarters generates profit margins of 90 and 95% in their Broadband division. American ISPs invest in new network infrastructure, but they under-invest compared to the rest of the developed industrial nations. Instead the money goes to advertising and buying content companies.
The network neutrality doctrine forces ISP's to build up their networks. You can't meet the bandwidth demand generated without it. It's the "club" consumers have to force Telecom to do it. Take that away, and budgets to network engineering will dry up. If Mr Pai prevails, we'll see broadband fees go up, while the speed and bandwidth of US broadband stalls and degrades.
4
i hope the keepers of the nation are leaving popcorn trails so we can remember all the things Donald Trump has torn asunder. It seems that he doesn't even understand the issues, but that is academic in a scorched earth campaign.
3
GM offers special lease deals to customers who currently have a GM lease. Is this neutral? No. Is this unfair? Also no. Why should a company not be allowed to promote its own products over those of its competitors?
It's irresponsible to treat information as a "product". Not everything needs to be commerce.
6
The issue is exclusion when You are a channel for that info/products. GM isnt in control of how other manufacturers can reach the public to sell their cars.
If GM was somehow allowed to be the only dealership built and all other manufacturers had to sell thu a GM dealership...there would need to be rules in place to allow equal access.
If GM was somehow allowed to be the only dealership built and all other manufacturers had to sell thu a GM dealership...there would need to be rules in place to allow equal access.
5
GM does not control the streets or the highways and cannot tell you which streets to take to get someplace or where to stop for shopping, ISPs control access the Internet and but should not control where you travel on the internet.
5
I'm baffled why the Democratic Party isn't all over the issue of what Trump's FCC is doing to internet neutrality and internet privacy.
The cable companies are monopolistic, expensive and consequently very unpopular with the public at large. This issue cuts across a wide swath of the electorate and makes a mockery of Trump being the working man's president.
Yet I've heard nothing from Democratic leaders on this. Why?!
The cable companies are monopolistic, expensive and consequently very unpopular with the public at large. This issue cuts across a wide swath of the electorate and makes a mockery of Trump being the working man's president.
Yet I've heard nothing from Democratic leaders on this. Why?!
6
Follow the money...
4
The Republican Party is a business.
They work feverishly against against the common good to cash in for themselves and their friends.
The depend on the uninformed voters who are ruled by their emotions.
Sad.
They work feverishly against against the common good to cash in for themselves and their friends.
The depend on the uninformed voters who are ruled by their emotions.
Sad.
10
But I thought "Freedom is Slavery". Perhaps they haven't read the book...
2
Trump's administrators are not going to regulate environmental pollutants, healthcare, the internet, or any other business in any way. They are free market ideologues. "The market will control" they say. The market will allow competition and competition will produce the better product and service.
These free marketeers are correct in one function of a capitalist economic system; free completion should, in the end, produce the most profitable and efficient product. That is true. But to whom it is profitable, and how is it made most efficient is an issue that need consideration.
Share holders and corporate leaders will make more and more and more money as internet providers compete. Most will win as the completion narrows the field of competitors. On the other end, people who get their services from providers will either pay more for high end service, or be marginalized at the lower ends. A perfect example is our current airline industry. Flights are cheaper now, but fewer providers have narrowed the completion, and those providers have lessened service to all but the most expensive seats and clients. If you fly economy, you will know what I mean. Do you really want that for the internet?
These free marketeers are correct in one function of a capitalist economic system; free completion should, in the end, produce the most profitable and efficient product. That is true. But to whom it is profitable, and how is it made most efficient is an issue that need consideration.
Share holders and corporate leaders will make more and more and more money as internet providers compete. Most will win as the completion narrows the field of competitors. On the other end, people who get their services from providers will either pay more for high end service, or be marginalized at the lower ends. A perfect example is our current airline industry. Flights are cheaper now, but fewer providers have narrowed the completion, and those providers have lessened service to all but the most expensive seats and clients. If you fly economy, you will know what I mean. Do you really want that for the internet?
7
“Restoring Internet Freedom” is as Orwellian as it comes. The only freedom it promises to restore is the freedom of internet services providers to function as vertical monopolies reminiscent of the Robber Baron era. The core problem is the fact that most ISP’s are themselves content providers. As competitive sources for entertainment via streaming have grown, the lucrative cable TV franchises enjoyed by most ISP’s have suffered. That is the real reason they are howling to reverse net neutrality rules. Then they can make it more expensive to use streaming services other than their own with the result being less choice and higher prices for consumers.
As the internet has become ubiquitous, it has become to the twenty-first century what electricity and phone service were to the twentieth – essential services that are critical for the economic vitality of the nation. Since most communities have only a single high speed internet provider, they function as monopolies. As it now stands, current net neutrality rules provide very limited protection, and their removal, while perhaps increasing short term profits for ISP’s would clearly work against the public interest.
In the long run, the large ISP’s are going to have to be broken up, separating their cable and wireless operations from content provision. Only then will there be a truly level playing field that will promote real innovation and competition. Until then, net neutrality rules must be kept in place.
As the internet has become ubiquitous, it has become to the twenty-first century what electricity and phone service were to the twentieth – essential services that are critical for the economic vitality of the nation. Since most communities have only a single high speed internet provider, they function as monopolies. As it now stands, current net neutrality rules provide very limited protection, and their removal, while perhaps increasing short term profits for ISP’s would clearly work against the public interest.
In the long run, the large ISP’s are going to have to be broken up, separating their cable and wireless operations from content provision. Only then will there be a truly level playing field that will promote real innovation and competition. Until then, net neutrality rules must be kept in place.
25
I listened to an on-air interview with Mr. Pai and thought at the time he doesn't see how this affects people downstream, just how it allows large corporations to do what they want virtually unregulated. Imagine if our medication oversight system is similarly unregulated? Assurances that we'll know the problems when we see them are empty and his lax oversight promises only to make it more expensive and too cumbersome for the average consumer to protect their own rights. Unsurprisingly, Pai's actions are part of an overall scheme to establish a lack of transparency and his "new" standard is nothing more than a challenge to consumers to "Catch us if you can!" From hidden White House visitor logs to integrated family business dealings, "Trump Family and Friends" are serving themselves a palate of investments gains that will enrich themselves far into the future. Did anyone vote for that? I hope not.
41
Comparing the FCC to the FDA is worse than comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is $influence$ from the industries that they pretend to regulate.
2
Correction: He doesn't care how this affects people downstream.
5
Companies need to adapt to the environment they operate in. Consumers do not have clout, therefore their government needs to protect them as its first priority. We read of how comparatively inexpensive internet access is overseas and with gigabyte service coming to more large cities. Technology marches on and what was costly a few years ago is now much less so. Yet my provider (Charter) just implemented an increase of over 11%, with no improvement for me.
Once the places we visit (Netflix, Amazon, etc) start to pay even more bribes, which in essence these net non-neutral fees are, our costs for those services will rise, too.
For the consumer, us, we have no protection when wild hairs like Pai are steering the ship. The internet is now a commodity, a utility, not unlike the telephone was just a few decades ago.
Citizen protection needs to be the highest priority. I am afraid it is not, and I don't see our congress stepping in to insure it is so.
Once the places we visit (Netflix, Amazon, etc) start to pay even more bribes, which in essence these net non-neutral fees are, our costs for those services will rise, too.
For the consumer, us, we have no protection when wild hairs like Pai are steering the ship. The internet is now a commodity, a utility, not unlike the telephone was just a few decades ago.
Citizen protection needs to be the highest priority. I am afraid it is not, and I don't see our congress stepping in to insure it is so.
17
Perfect! The Republicans, the party of "freedom," have decided the internet doesn't have to be free, and certainly not inexpensive.
12
While republicans would never admit it, de-regulation is a form of regulation so when they make things easier for corporations and business they are making it harder and more expensive for citizens. Who will protect us and our rights, the free market does not appear to be the way to do this. Cable bills will go up. speeds will not increase and no one will pay attention to the consumers. I keep hoping the people will come first some times.
5
"While republicans would never admit it, de-regulation is a form of regulation".....Said perfectly. Corporations or consumers, the question is whose interests are being regulated and whose interests are being deregulated?
Making America great again means fewer barriers to commerce, growth, and innovation. Just as monopolies are barriers to these things, so too is letting companies dictate how consumers access and use the internet. All this Administration is doing is putting the U.S. farther behind other nations in areas that lead to sustained growth and prosperity for the Nation, and ahead of competing nations in favoring the interests of a select few over the whole.
5
Net neutrality proponents are bought and paid for by Google, Facebook, Apple Soros and the Ford Foundation. Apple and Google block more apps every day from their app stores that would benefit small start-ups, than ISPs have ever blocked. Google for one has played the FCC like a fiddle offering to buy wireless spectrum, then bailing out, then playing around with a fiber build. then bailing out. They don't have the stomach or interest for customer service oriented businesses. Their monopoly in search is best protected by not engaging the public's ire. The telcos and cable cos invest in networks and customer service - the Internet behemoths ride freely on top with none of the expense or headaches.
Meanwhile the FCC claimed Title 2 was not about price regulation, but Gigi Sohn, Tim Wu and now this editorial have all led with price controls as the rationale - we already know the blocking start-ups angle is a charade. If you want gigabit/5G networks and want to regulate the price, then don't ask private industry to pay for it.
Meanwhile the FCC claimed Title 2 was not about price regulation, but Gigi Sohn, Tim Wu and now this editorial have all led with price controls as the rationale - we already know the blocking start-ups angle is a charade. If you want gigabit/5G networks and want to regulate the price, then don't ask private industry to pay for it.
2
The whole APP blocking is a canard. How many of them and of them how many are useful, or a just skeletons, not yet fully fleshed out, but rushed to market, to make the founder some quick money?
The whole religious-like ideology that APPS are gonna save the world is an absurdity. All hail the APP and their creators, as the Saviors of the World!
What are the APPS that are so crucial to small start-ups? How many small-start-ups have suffered because they cant get that all important APP? Since when did APP's become such a valuable part of biz start-up cycle?
Do you have data on how many, if any, small-start-ups failed because of the lack of an APP? Any data at all?
The whole religious-like ideology that APPS are gonna save the world is an absurdity. All hail the APP and their creators, as the Saviors of the World!
What are the APPS that are so crucial to small start-ups? How many small-start-ups have suffered because they cant get that all important APP? Since when did APP's become such a valuable part of biz start-up cycle?
Do you have data on how many, if any, small-start-ups failed because of the lack of an APP? Any data at all?
I live in Kansas City, mO where Google installed Gigabit service. For the last three years, since they installed the service, they have operated as the best service I've had in twenty-five years of internet access. They deliver what was promised. There customer services has been impeccable. The couple of times in three years when there has been a problem, a service tech was here in 45 minutes and fixed the problem. I've not once been frustrated or angered or dissatisfied - even one time when the service was down for two hours, they gave a two day refund. And this is in contrast to other services I've had between Seattle, Chicago, NY, and Kansas City, MO: Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T...each have been unscrupulous, with lousy customer service and always trying to find new ways to pilfer another buck. So, frankly, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
" In particular, the commission has a responsibility to protect people with few or no choices; most Americans have access to just one or two companies for residential service and just four big operators for wireless."
SOME Americans have NO companies serving them. 20% of homes have no internet... and roughly another 15% (including mine) are limited to dsl or dial up. Why not? Because "the market" doesn't warrant running a cable line .5 miles down my road because there aren't enough houses on it... or, stated more bluntly, there's no money to be made.... and when tiered systems come into play as they surely will, "the market" will exacerbate the economic divides that are already at play when we look at internet services.
SOME Americans have NO companies serving them. 20% of homes have no internet... and roughly another 15% (including mine) are limited to dsl or dial up. Why not? Because "the market" doesn't warrant running a cable line .5 miles down my road because there aren't enough houses on it... or, stated more bluntly, there's no money to be made.... and when tiered systems come into play as they surely will, "the market" will exacerbate the economic divides that are already at play when we look at internet services.
7
Federal regulators prevented cable TV from reaching its potential and rendered it a wasteland. Now they're setting out to do the same for digital broadband. The incentive of industry is always to give consumers as little as possible for the highest price. Personally, I'm going back to reading books and the US mail.
Functional details of modern technology can be bewildering for management
people who have training in business, law, psychology, and public speaking.
Many decision makers tend to hire technical advisers who tell them what they
want to hear - the "cherry-picking" of statistical analyses that argue a point.
As an engineer in high-tech manufacturing (that's right, my computer-based,
data-driven systems allowed 90 people to net 150% greater production -
2.5 times - with better quality control than 125 people were achieving, after
implementing some fairly simple factory automation - some 35 people had to
find another way to work for a living. Sorry about that. But the guys getting
shot at had far fewer instances of equipment failure. Not sorry about
that....) I experienced a catastrophic system failure when corporate HQ
mandated a sudden, world-wide conversion from Windows 95 to Windows
NT. We in the trenches told the overlords that this change would break
enough things to stop production, but HQ had hired a tech consultant who
insisted on implementing this plan. We were right, and the consultant was
fired, but only after the damage was done.
All this to illustrate that when you have non-technical people making decisions,
those people need to be willing and able to determine which of their technical
advisers are speaking truth about STEM and which are lying to get or keep a
lucrative, powerful job.
people who have training in business, law, psychology, and public speaking.
Many decision makers tend to hire technical advisers who tell them what they
want to hear - the "cherry-picking" of statistical analyses that argue a point.
As an engineer in high-tech manufacturing (that's right, my computer-based,
data-driven systems allowed 90 people to net 150% greater production -
2.5 times - with better quality control than 125 people were achieving, after
implementing some fairly simple factory automation - some 35 people had to
find another way to work for a living. Sorry about that. But the guys getting
shot at had far fewer instances of equipment failure. Not sorry about
that....) I experienced a catastrophic system failure when corporate HQ
mandated a sudden, world-wide conversion from Windows 95 to Windows
NT. We in the trenches told the overlords that this change would break
enough things to stop production, but HQ had hired a tech consultant who
insisted on implementing this plan. We were right, and the consultant was
fired, but only after the damage was done.
All this to illustrate that when you have non-technical people making decisions,
those people need to be willing and able to determine which of their technical
advisers are speaking truth about STEM and which are lying to get or keep a
lucrative, powerful job.
2
"the F.C.C. is considering using voluntary commitments from the industry."
yeah, because expecting verizon, comcast, time-warner, etc etc to do the right thing has always worked out so well for consumers
yeah, because expecting verizon, comcast, time-warner, etc etc to do the right thing has always worked out so well for consumers
10
It was Bill Clinton’s FCC Chair, Reed Hundt, who first established the policy that the Internet NOT be regulated under 1935 regulations designed for monopoly telcos. At that time it was telcos who wanted regulation to protect themselves from innovative competition. If they’d won, there’s be no Skype, 800 shopping would still be more important than webs hopping, Netflix would still be sending videos by mail, and Google and Amazon, who then lobbied against regulation, wouldn’t be the companies they are today.
The non-regulation policy endured – and the Internet thrived – under both Democratic and Republican Presidents until the Obama FCC decided in 2015 that telco regulation should apply to the Internet, ironically because Google et al now wanted regulation to protect them from competition by the telcos – and by innovative new entrants. Google had originally tried competing with the telcos – which would be good – by building fiber itself but apparently found that harder than getting regulatory protection.
Neither fantastically successful Google nor the telcos deserve regulatory protection from each other or from startups. The regulations Pai wants to repeal make the Internet less competitive and less neutral.
See http://blog.tomevslin.com/2017/04/-dont-make-the-internet-safe-for-monop....
The non-regulation policy endured – and the Internet thrived – under both Democratic and Republican Presidents until the Obama FCC decided in 2015 that telco regulation should apply to the Internet, ironically because Google et al now wanted regulation to protect them from competition by the telcos – and by innovative new entrants. Google had originally tried competing with the telcos – which would be good – by building fiber itself but apparently found that harder than getting regulatory protection.
Neither fantastically successful Google nor the telcos deserve regulatory protection from each other or from startups. The regulations Pai wants to repeal make the Internet less competitive and less neutral.
See http://blog.tomevslin.com/2017/04/-dont-make-the-internet-safe-for-monop....
3
At the forefront of this issue is our very definition of capitalism: our constitution and legal precedent derived from it for a couple of centuries lived in the same economic environment that became enshrined as 'the American Dream'. But that was then, that a person could work hard and make good decisions and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Now, technology, transportation, and communications have produced an exaggerated version of what Marx and Engels philosophized about: conglomerates holding not just the means of production (a factory or mine, for example) by ALL the means in multiple industries. Diversification means that these groups no longer just control the means of production, but all the factors feeding those operations. Do you, as a citizen, have ANY course you can take about an issue like net neutrality? Really?
I fear that a time when our freedom is again threatened by 'combinations too powerful to suppress'. Unfortunately, our 'democracy' has become yet another institution unable to maintain an independence from these 'combinations'. If you don't think so, just start a debate about what YOU think the tax code ought to do, and see how the incipient congressional debate relates to it
I fear that a time when our freedom is again threatened by 'combinations too powerful to suppress'. Unfortunately, our 'democracy' has become yet another institution unable to maintain an independence from these 'combinations'. If you don't think so, just start a debate about what YOU think the tax code ought to do, and see how the incipient congressional debate relates to it
Yep, another broken "campaign promise" from a president who said he would "make America great again." He just forgot to mention that it would be great for the rich, privileged, and corporate. The rest of us? He and his cabinet cronies could care less. So much for the Internet.
I hope someone develops an alternative Internet. I will be in line to join. As for the cable and telecommunications companies? As soon as there is an alternative, I will cancel my ATT telephone/DSL service in order to spend my money with a company that actual cares about its customers.
I want a company that offer equality of services and does not spy on my Internet habits. Big Brother is apparently here--not far off from Orwell's prediction.
I hope someone develops an alternative Internet. I will be in line to join. As for the cable and telecommunications companies? As soon as there is an alternative, I will cancel my ATT telephone/DSL service in order to spend my money with a company that actual cares about its customers.
I want a company that offer equality of services and does not spy on my Internet habits. Big Brother is apparently here--not far off from Orwell's prediction.
4
Mostly, the Editorial Board is correct here, but not entirely.
Internet access is essential to modern life, and circumstances are such that like water and power, there are only one or two vendors from which consumers can buy it. There are only one or two wires that enter the home – the TV cable, and the old copper telephone line. The companies that decades ago built out this infrastructure knew they were installing a monopoly utility and that they would be subject to regulation.
Today, we see cable companies raising fees tremendously. Consumers often have to pay exorbitant fees to rent set top boxes, or for services they don’t use, like local broadcast channels they can receive over the air or sports channels many don’t watch.
The FCC must regulate cable providers, and even under Obama the agency was failing. Many of the excessive fees were approved in recent years. Rules that required the cable companies to allow consumers to own their own set-top boxes, rather than rent at extortionate rates, have not been updated to apply to modern technology. In geekspeak, the FCC needs to update and apply cablecard QAM rules to new IPTV technology.
That said, high volume data service is not without cost, and requiring companies like Netflix that use tremendous bandwidth, and their customers, to pay something extra is reasonable. True “net neutrality” is not fair either.
We need a consumer oriented, tech savvy, active FCC.
Internet access is essential to modern life, and circumstances are such that like water and power, there are only one or two vendors from which consumers can buy it. There are only one or two wires that enter the home – the TV cable, and the old copper telephone line. The companies that decades ago built out this infrastructure knew they were installing a monopoly utility and that they would be subject to regulation.
Today, we see cable companies raising fees tremendously. Consumers often have to pay exorbitant fees to rent set top boxes, or for services they don’t use, like local broadcast channels they can receive over the air or sports channels many don’t watch.
The FCC must regulate cable providers, and even under Obama the agency was failing. Many of the excessive fees were approved in recent years. Rules that required the cable companies to allow consumers to own their own set-top boxes, rather than rent at extortionate rates, have not been updated to apply to modern technology. In geekspeak, the FCC needs to update and apply cablecard QAM rules to new IPTV technology.
That said, high volume data service is not without cost, and requiring companies like Netflix that use tremendous bandwidth, and their customers, to pay something extra is reasonable. True “net neutrality” is not fair either.
We need a consumer oriented, tech savvy, active FCC.
32
If you base policy on reality with out prejudice and no agenda, it will be both fair and good.
I watched Mr. Pai's interview on PBS a couple of days ago. His arguments in favor of eliminating network neutrality rules were incomprehensible to someone who worked in the communications industry for most of my life. The conclusion I reached is that Mr. Pai, like most people, have no idea how the network works. First you have to have a network that makes it possible for people to access content. In many cases, it is only financially feasible to build out one or two networks to serve people, especially in rural areas. So to assure that all Americans have access to the Internet and other services, networks sometimes need to be publicly supported and regulated so that they can exist. Networks need to be "neutral" so that all "content providers" can access them freely on the same financial basis as all other content providers, for all of the reasons this article suggests. That is why the FCC determined that they are communications services subject to regulation. Some providers, like AT&T, Comcast and others are both network providers and content providers. If left unregulated, of course they are going to give themselves advantages when they use their own networks to distribute their own content, and charge others higher rates to access them. For this reason, I believe network providers should not be allowed to be content providers, and should be regulated to assure "network neutrality".
80
I wonder what this will do to the use of browsers that mask the user? Lately I've been using a Tor browser (instead of say Google, or Edge). This tends to frustrate the data collectors who want to develop profiles of users that are then sold as commodities to anyone, who will in turn pester you with adds to no end. Like ads in a theater we pay for admission, to sit through pitches from advertisers who are themselves paying for the opportunity.
The use of masking devices so frustrates this advertisers that, even though I'm a paying customer to NYT, I have to go through a 5 steps process to sign-in because NYT can't get a fix on me. I'm sure that NYT is among those secretly hoping that Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T can so frustrate a user of a TOR browser that they will file back into the cubicles and submit to their onslaught of selling. When you think about it; advertising is the original (OG) fake news.
The use of masking devices so frustrates this advertisers that, even though I'm a paying customer to NYT, I have to go through a 5 steps process to sign-in because NYT can't get a fix on me. I'm sure that NYT is among those secretly hoping that Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T can so frustrate a user of a TOR browser that they will file back into the cubicles and submit to their onslaught of selling. When you think about it; advertising is the original (OG) fake news.
5
"Freedom."
If I were an alien coming to earth for the first time, I would be struck by conservatives' use of that word. I would try to interpret it from context. I would soon conclude it always meant one of three things to them:
"I want to privilege the wealthy and powerful against everyone else."
"I don't want to help people I don't like."
"I want to be able to as rude as I wish to anyone I feel like hating."
One would have to carefully explain to such an alien that "freedom" used to mean more than that to us Americans, and that conservatives use the term this way to wrap their true goals in something more noble.
If I were an alien coming to earth for the first time, I would be struck by conservatives' use of that word. I would try to interpret it from context. I would soon conclude it always meant one of three things to them:
"I want to privilege the wealthy and powerful against everyone else."
"I don't want to help people I don't like."
"I want to be able to as rude as I wish to anyone I feel like hating."
One would have to carefully explain to such an alien that "freedom" used to mean more than that to us Americans, and that conservatives use the term this way to wrap their true goals in something more noble.
14
Can the authors at least pretend to do their homework? Several important points that the authors failed to share. 1) The US lags other countries in recent broadband build out because of the Net Neutrality policies. These policies reduced incentives for Telcos to invest in broadband. Just look at the financial statements of the big players and you see the reduced capital investment. 2) Net Neutrality disadvantaged traditional cable content companies to compete against the over the top player like Netflix. The cable companies must pay for the transport of their content. Netflix pays nothing and gains a huge advantage. Who pays for the content delivery of Netflix content. The customers that do not use the service but who are forced to pay more for their broadband service and who effectively subsidize Netflix. We are still in a time of major innovation. Lets not kill it off.
4
Do other countries have net neutrality rules? If these companies are permitted to rake in even more money do you really think they will invest it? My bet is that it would go to high management salaries and dividends to the stockholders.
3
Of course !!! Like healthcare which is an absolute necessity, use what is indispensable in our current society by wrapping yourself in the Flag, screaming Freedom and begin raking in the profits.
The Republican Corporate Handbook.
The Republican Corporate Handbook.
11
With 2 branches of government down, could this go to judicial to block the changes to net neutrality?
3
There are already 3 down.
3
This is but one example of anti-regulation among many such examples under Trump. The FDA will be able to push drugs through to unsuspecting consumers much faster than before, thus increasing the likelihood of more Thalidomide tragedies. The EPA will become the watchdog FOR big business and against humanity. Public education will become weaker as funds are diverted away from public education in favor of for-profit charter schools. Health care will likely become so expensive that millions will go back to being uninsured again. Medicare will likely be weakened as will social security.
Of course, future administrations may try to reverse the negative effects of these changes but at what price? Irreparable damage to our planet? Tens of thousands of avoidable deaths due to lack of health care? A dramatic increase in inflation? Possible economic recession? We have a lot to lose under this administration all in the name of big business profits.
Of course, future administrations may try to reverse the negative effects of these changes but at what price? Irreparable damage to our planet? Tens of thousands of avoidable deaths due to lack of health care? A dramatic increase in inflation? Possible economic recession? We have a lot to lose under this administration all in the name of big business profits.
3
I'm glad I'm 80 so I won't be around to live under all these dreadful occurrences Wally Burger of Chicago writes about. I really don't believe Americans will allow all these things to happen to us. We are organizing and finding new sources of information and groups to join to fight back. We're not going to just lie down and allow our country to be wrecked. Get up off your couch and start speaking out and voting more carefully.
Forgive me my cynicism and lack of trust in the altruism of internet providers.
This is the country that saw a paying customer forcibly dragged off an airplane because he refused to be unceremoniously bounced for the great sin of having a paid for ticket, when they needed to cheaply transport staff.
This is the country that allows payday loans companies to shark out loans advertised as short term but meant to be permanent.
This is the country that allows and enforces arbitration clauses in simple transactions so that you can't buy soap online from a high end producer without agreeing to arbitration before they let you proceed to checkout.
This is a country that is OK with mining companies polluting streams. And allows companies who install traffic cameras to profit from making setting the timing to make it easier to collect fines.
And, oh yeah, the country that allowed banks to regulate the mortgage repackaging market and brought down the global economy. Remember that?
The cable and internet providers have long been known for their notable lack of customer service and monopolistic practices and pricing. What could go wrong?
This is the country that saw a paying customer forcibly dragged off an airplane because he refused to be unceremoniously bounced for the great sin of having a paid for ticket, when they needed to cheaply transport staff.
This is the country that allows payday loans companies to shark out loans advertised as short term but meant to be permanent.
This is the country that allows and enforces arbitration clauses in simple transactions so that you can't buy soap online from a high end producer without agreeing to arbitration before they let you proceed to checkout.
This is a country that is OK with mining companies polluting streams. And allows companies who install traffic cameras to profit from making setting the timing to make it easier to collect fines.
And, oh yeah, the country that allowed banks to regulate the mortgage repackaging market and brought down the global economy. Remember that?
The cable and internet providers have long been known for their notable lack of customer service and monopolistic practices and pricing. What could go wrong?
We don't pay for broadcast TV or radio, but is is far from free. Advertizing and commercial benefeit is the foundation of public communication. Why would you think changing the medium to on-demand Internet would be any different?
The NYTimes accepts advertising revenue - even to the extent of sponsored articles.
If a consumer had a choice between $20 month Internet, but certain content that was sponsored to streamed at full speed, or pay $30 a month for the same speed everywhere, what would most consumers pick? Would you pay and extra $10 / month to get the same NYT without ads? Most people would not.
The NYTimes accepts advertising revenue - even to the extent of sponsored articles.
If a consumer had a choice between $20 month Internet, but certain content that was sponsored to streamed at full speed, or pay $30 a month for the same speed everywhere, what would most consumers pick? Would you pay and extra $10 / month to get the same NYT without ads? Most people would not.
2
Ajit Varadaraj Pai was appointed by President Barack Obama in May 2012.
Prior to the FCC’s imposition of rate caps on interstate prison and jail phone calls in February 2014, the largest ICS provider Global Tel-Link - which has been profitably bought and sold by private equity firms such as American Securities and Veritas Capital - charged some of the highest rates in the US – up to $17.30 for a 15-minute call. The 2013 FCC analysis, described how, in some cases, long-distance calls are charged six times the rate on the outside. Pai opposed the FCC imposition of "safe harbor" of 12 cents with a cap of 21 cents on private ICS providers like GTL and CenturyLink Public Communications, arguing instead for a "simple proposal to cap interstate rates, with one rate for jails and a lower rate for prisons" that are cost-based to protect providers and ensure "some return on investment." In 2015, Pai again opposed rate caps on in-state inmate calls with families paying up to $54 a phone call.[33] He raised concerns about the increased use of contraband cell phones in prisons. In November 2016, the ICS provider won a halt to cap the rates. Ajit Pai criticized Democrats for appealing and the courts for intervening on ICS rate regulations. Shortly after his January 23 confirmation as chairman, Pai withdrew support for the FCC case involving GTL and CenturyLink set for February 6, 2017 which had called for curbing phone call prices.
We need to get rid of this creep.
Prior to the FCC’s imposition of rate caps on interstate prison and jail phone calls in February 2014, the largest ICS provider Global Tel-Link - which has been profitably bought and sold by private equity firms such as American Securities and Veritas Capital - charged some of the highest rates in the US – up to $17.30 for a 15-minute call. The 2013 FCC analysis, described how, in some cases, long-distance calls are charged six times the rate on the outside. Pai opposed the FCC imposition of "safe harbor" of 12 cents with a cap of 21 cents on private ICS providers like GTL and CenturyLink Public Communications, arguing instead for a "simple proposal to cap interstate rates, with one rate for jails and a lower rate for prisons" that are cost-based to protect providers and ensure "some return on investment." In 2015, Pai again opposed rate caps on in-state inmate calls with families paying up to $54 a phone call.[33] He raised concerns about the increased use of contraband cell phones in prisons. In November 2016, the ICS provider won a halt to cap the rates. Ajit Pai criticized Democrats for appealing and the courts for intervening on ICS rate regulations. Shortly after his January 23 confirmation as chairman, Pai withdrew support for the FCC case involving GTL and CenturyLink set for February 6, 2017 which had called for curbing phone call prices.
We need to get rid of this creep.
3
Once upon a time we had anti-trust laws that were enforced.
14
We, the People must regain ownership of the internet in order to continue living in a semblance of a Democracy. Or we can ascend into the depths of corporate Fascism. Young people, pay attention, this is YOUR future/freedom.
6
It is a myth that we non-investors own it. Put up or shut up.
OK, Mr. Comcast. Or is it Mr. Verizon?
1
aaannd the conversion of the internet to cable TV is complete. I'm sure you can still get the current internet, but with an upgraded price. Want them to not sell your information-an upgraded price. Want to change ISP ? Nope.
1
There is no justification for allowing big ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Time-Warner to throttle back on small content providers outside their ecosystems. Imagine if the Walton family owned the phone company and you got a crisp clear connection when you called the nearest Walmart, and only a crackly, lo-fi connection that repeatedly drops out when you called the corner store?
This decision would choke small business startups. Pai's smoke and mirrors is nothing but obfuscation of another huge gift to mega-corporations at the expense of ordinary people. Remember ordinary people, Mr. Pai? The ones that you are supposed to be representing?
The cleanest way to solve this problem would be to statutorily separate signal transmission from content provision. That is the true meaning of free speech: everyone has access to the microphone, and the sound engineers focus on delivering great sound. They don't get to turn down the volume if the speaker isn't making them money.
This decision would choke small business startups. Pai's smoke and mirrors is nothing but obfuscation of another huge gift to mega-corporations at the expense of ordinary people. Remember ordinary people, Mr. Pai? The ones that you are supposed to be representing?
The cleanest way to solve this problem would be to statutorily separate signal transmission from content provision. That is the true meaning of free speech: everyone has access to the microphone, and the sound engineers focus on delivering great sound. They don't get to turn down the volume if the speaker isn't making them money.
3
The internet should be treated as a common carrier, so that all traffic is given the same rights, privileges and responsibilities.
4
The gross amount of mis-information on this issue is staggering. I heartily challenge the NYT Editorial Board to read the 10-K's of every ISP in America.
There is nothing more costly than laying fiber, amplifiers, hybrid splitters and customer termination equipment. Use any industry source you care. Some estimates run as high as $50+ million per mile in metro NYC, or Chicago or San Fran. One mile gets but 1% coverage. Why in the last two years did capital expenditures for IP connectivity decline for the first time since the internet began 30 years ago? The expected returns were horrendous. So yes, it is easier to acquire XYZ Corp than shell out many billions to increase penetration and deliverable bandwidth speeds. Ask Google, with all their cash, why they have throttled back on Google Fiber? Do the math: How many years and how many customers paying $50/mth would it take any ISP to simply recover a $ 5 Billion investment in high-speed, always-on gigabit fiber? But God forbid, I'll go crazy if I can't watch "House of Cards." This isn't politics. This is economics. Bandwidth isn't red or blue. You want free. Get rabbit ears for your TV or dial-up for IP connectivity. Keep all government out of the internet please including the FCC.
There is nothing more costly than laying fiber, amplifiers, hybrid splitters and customer termination equipment. Use any industry source you care. Some estimates run as high as $50+ million per mile in metro NYC, or Chicago or San Fran. One mile gets but 1% coverage. Why in the last two years did capital expenditures for IP connectivity decline for the first time since the internet began 30 years ago? The expected returns were horrendous. So yes, it is easier to acquire XYZ Corp than shell out many billions to increase penetration and deliverable bandwidth speeds. Ask Google, with all their cash, why they have throttled back on Google Fiber? Do the math: How many years and how many customers paying $50/mth would it take any ISP to simply recover a $ 5 Billion investment in high-speed, always-on gigabit fiber? But God forbid, I'll go crazy if I can't watch "House of Cards." This isn't politics. This is economics. Bandwidth isn't red or blue. You want free. Get rabbit ears for your TV or dial-up for IP connectivity. Keep all government out of the internet please including the FCC.
3
The government created the internet. Saying "keep all government out of the internet" is like saying "keep your government hands off my Medicare."
4
End users should be empowered to create their own last mile networks to access all content providers.
One more nail in the coffin of civilization and democracy...
1
A few salient facts are warranted here. I have been building and designing IP networks for 25 years.
Without going too wonky here, people need to know that providers of Internet services such as AT&T, Verizon etc. implement your broadband ACCESS networks to you the consumer with essentially (not withstanding newer FCC rule changes) a blind pipe that does not discriminate amongst the various content providers that send you data from players like Google, Netflix and Akamei. These guys are known as content delivery networks (CDN). Another "feature" of ACCESS networks is that they are by design oversubscribed (yes like overselling a plane), this is why you can only get up to certain data rates.
But you should know that beyond that ACCESS network, there are EXCHANGE networks where CDNs feed their content into the ACCESS networks that you pay for. You should also know that the CDNs now account for north of 70-80% of all traffic on the Internet. And they have built massive distribution networks as close as is possible to the "last mile" hence giving you access to your content as fast as possible. But there lies the problem. We are talking about a few 10s of CDNs that account for all Internet traffic!
Simply put there is really no "neutrality" as such and really hasn't been in last 10 because the CDNs are positioned perfectly to control most of the traffic you receive. I know that it's easy to hate your ISP but if you want neutrality you already don't have it and never will.
Without going too wonky here, people need to know that providers of Internet services such as AT&T, Verizon etc. implement your broadband ACCESS networks to you the consumer with essentially (not withstanding newer FCC rule changes) a blind pipe that does not discriminate amongst the various content providers that send you data from players like Google, Netflix and Akamei. These guys are known as content delivery networks (CDN). Another "feature" of ACCESS networks is that they are by design oversubscribed (yes like overselling a plane), this is why you can only get up to certain data rates.
But you should know that beyond that ACCESS network, there are EXCHANGE networks where CDNs feed their content into the ACCESS networks that you pay for. You should also know that the CDNs now account for north of 70-80% of all traffic on the Internet. And they have built massive distribution networks as close as is possible to the "last mile" hence giving you access to your content as fast as possible. But there lies the problem. We are talking about a few 10s of CDNs that account for all Internet traffic!
Simply put there is really no "neutrality" as such and really hasn't been in last 10 because the CDNs are positioned perfectly to control most of the traffic you receive. I know that it's easy to hate your ISP but if you want neutrality you already don't have it and never will.
2
It was the last day of April and the clocks were striking thirteen. As it were.
"Restoring internet freedom," eh. Okay. More thinly veiled double-speak, thinly enough that one doesn't even need a particularly discerning sense of humor to get the joke. Not unlike "Freedom Caucus" (my latest un-favorite), Paul Ryan carrying on about "greater consumer choice," and nearly anything Sean Spicer has to say.
Just another fine example of what it *really* is that trickles down in the US: double-speak, hypocrisy, deceit dressed up as something else.
"Restoring internet freedom," eh. Okay. More thinly veiled double-speak, thinly enough that one doesn't even need a particularly discerning sense of humor to get the joke. Not unlike "Freedom Caucus" (my latest un-favorite), Paul Ryan carrying on about "greater consumer choice," and nearly anything Sean Spicer has to say.
Just another fine example of what it *really* is that trickles down in the US: double-speak, hypocrisy, deceit dressed up as something else.
5
The Internet has been a true marketplace of ideas since it was opened up to everybody. It boggles my mind that the Republicans want to destroy that so their already obscenely rich patrons can squeeze a few more nickels out of us. It is truly Orwellian to say that destroying net neutrality will increase Internet freedom. But they'll go ahead and do it anyway, because generally if sonebody with lots of money and, hence, lots of political pull, wants something done it generally gets done regardless of consequences.
3
Actually, as the phone companies come to own "LTE Broadcast" transmission in the next few years, they will acquire all the top tv media properties. They will home run tv feeds to the consumer. They will give bandwidth away to get customers.
Steve Jobs complained that the tv business was "balkanized" around the cable box. In the 2020's it will become "balkanized" around the smart phone. Remember, the telco's will get to own the best radio frequencies, the bandwidth, the transmission mode (LTE), and finally the premium content.
I know the article was about net neutrality. Since tv transmission is the biggest bandwidth hog known to man, I cut to the chase on what is happening.
Net neutrality was the Trojan Horse that got Netflicks onto your tv in the first place. Even Netflicks can be owned by a phone company, in the end.
Steve Jobs complained that the tv business was "balkanized" around the cable box. In the 2020's it will become "balkanized" around the smart phone. Remember, the telco's will get to own the best radio frequencies, the bandwidth, the transmission mode (LTE), and finally the premium content.
I know the article was about net neutrality. Since tv transmission is the biggest bandwidth hog known to man, I cut to the chase on what is happening.
Net neutrality was the Trojan Horse that got Netflicks onto your tv in the first place. Even Netflicks can be owned by a phone company, in the end.
Net neutrality is a stupid idea and I support getting rid of it. It is absurd it has ever gotten traction. If liberals could see past their ideological blinders, they might see why, but there is no hope of that.
2
I think at least 99% of the people who know what net neutrality means would oppose its destruction. That 1%, however, usually calls the shots in this country.
5
Unfortunately, America remains open for Business...
...as usual.
...as usual.
The leftists want to coop the internet, turn it into a leftist propaganda democrat organ, thereby reducing America's cherished freedoms. Not on Trump's watch.
3
Lots of dribble as usual, but only because the NYT EB opines with eyes wide shut, and opens them only with resounding approval, which east-coast "elites" at Columbia and Harvard only too happy to provide.
Mergers and acquisitions are not signs of wealth, they are acts of survival. Charter its acquisition of Time Warner, its current debt is over $60b. Ditto for AT&T & Verizon, debt over $100b, Sprint, for once looking thrifty, debt $37b. Combined these companies are $300 billion BILLION in debt.
As for Amazon, Google, Netflix etc. being fine, that's precisely the point. To date these Silicon Company companies have enjoyed an-almost free ride, all at the expense of cable and phone companies. They have no marginal cost, ZERO, only fixed costs. It's the deal of the century, but in reality, the steal of the century. Add insult to injury, these Silicon Valley companies have, of late, used Telcos as dumping ground for has-been internet ventures, although Verizon seems to be the only one to date, the only willing sucker. Nobody yet understands why Verizon happily shelled billions for Yahoo and AOL leftovers, but one part is definitely frustration. They roll-out FIOS, get sued by the mayor, meanwhile SV gets to pump 10x more data, all for free. Go figure.
As for consumers, they'll be fine, the free market will sort this out. After all, rich, debt-free Telcos are in consumers' (best) interest. Hugely rich Google and co. NOT. Last person, please turn off the streaming.
Mergers and acquisitions are not signs of wealth, they are acts of survival. Charter its acquisition of Time Warner, its current debt is over $60b. Ditto for AT&T & Verizon, debt over $100b, Sprint, for once looking thrifty, debt $37b. Combined these companies are $300 billion BILLION in debt.
As for Amazon, Google, Netflix etc. being fine, that's precisely the point. To date these Silicon Company companies have enjoyed an-almost free ride, all at the expense of cable and phone companies. They have no marginal cost, ZERO, only fixed costs. It's the deal of the century, but in reality, the steal of the century. Add insult to injury, these Silicon Valley companies have, of late, used Telcos as dumping ground for has-been internet ventures, although Verizon seems to be the only one to date, the only willing sucker. Nobody yet understands why Verizon happily shelled billions for Yahoo and AOL leftovers, but one part is definitely frustration. They roll-out FIOS, get sued by the mayor, meanwhile SV gets to pump 10x more data, all for free. Go figure.
As for consumers, they'll be fine, the free market will sort this out. After all, rich, debt-free Telcos are in consumers' (best) interest. Hugely rich Google and co. NOT. Last person, please turn off the streaming.
3
You are poorly informed, sir. When I pay my monthly ISP bill for Gigabit access, all the bits I send or receive are paid for. Same for every person and company who pays to be connected. What Mr. Pai wants to do is double dip with a mafia extortion fee.
@Juan
If it was billing by bit, Verizon would have bought Google, Apple and Netflix a while back. Certainly not what anyone is proposing, but just some trivia to help you thirst for coffee. Good morning.
If it was billing by bit, Verizon would have bought Google, Apple and Netflix a while back. Certainly not what anyone is proposing, but just some trivia to help you thirst for coffee. Good morning.
1
In this age and time, after all we have witnessed, to believe in "free market" and "self regulation" cannot be described as being just naive. Should be more like being criminal.
2
Considering how hard we Indians have fought for net neutrality in India, am kind of horrified and ashamed that it's a man with an Indian name who is working against this in the US. Not good.
1
I am marking this day on my calendar with extra special notation - I actually agree with an NYT editorial. Due to recent legislation, the cable company can now sell my private web browsing data to the highest bidder. With the dissolution of net neutrality they can now also decide what I can and can't do on the internet via throttling and price gouging. Cutting the cord on cable TV was a no-brainer. Unfortunately, cutting the cord on the internet is not possible.
1
…and the industry will respect VOLUNTARY" commitments. Who are we kidding here? Like when the TV industry said that deregulation of the amount of hourly ads permitted on TV would probably lead to less ads because of the competition? Or like when the industry says it needs the money to improve the services when Europeans have far faster fiber optic networks at around a $27 monthly tab for phone and internet? And we are supposed to really think the industry is looking out for our good? How stupid do they think we are?
1
When Leftists claim freedom is slavery, their contempt for man's mind is clear. Their intellectualism is a rationalization of their hatred of the intellect.
I almost forgot. You want to know something else that really grinds my gears? Have you ever noticed how your internet service never matches the advertised download rates? Even if you have blazing fast internet, the little indicator bar never says the same thing as your contracted rate. That's because internet service providers use a subtle but clever marketing ploy to trick consumers.
When you sign up for internet service, the download and upload rates are quoted in mega bits per second. When you go to download a file, the file is transferred in mega bytes per second. 1 mega byte (MB) equals 8 mega bits (Mb). In which case, if you really wanted 15 MBps downloads, you'd need to buy internet service 8 times faster (120 Mbps) than the advertised rate.
Jerks.
When you sign up for internet service, the download and upload rates are quoted in mega bits per second. When you go to download a file, the file is transferred in mega bytes per second. 1 mega byte (MB) equals 8 mega bits (Mb). In which case, if you really wanted 15 MBps downloads, you'd need to buy internet service 8 times faster (120 Mbps) than the advertised rate.
Jerks.
This is what happens when people who don't believe there is such a thing as the common good are put in charge of the common good.
2
"...there will be little stopping the broadband industry from squelching competition, limiting consumer choice and raising prices." Gulp! Topsy-turvy logic such as this may hook some suckers in the turbulent stream of confusion, but wiser fish know that free competitive markets provide more choice and lower prices than regulated industries. This fish ain't biting your bait.
1
Most Americans are addicted to TV. The providers know this, and keep raising prices, much as a drug dealer does with his addicts. Now, we have an administration so enamored of big business, it is determined to advance the cause of the price-gougers.
In this case, your comments would be more productive if you went to the FCC's home page and clicked Public Comment then 17-108. Tell the FCC directly.
1
Mr. Pai, It appears you have made your choice. Instead of protecting our communications for people and small businesses, you are protecting communications for the big Telcoms. Instead of forcing big Tecom to break up and be a company that provides connectivity and another company that provides information, media and entertainment, you are making it possible for big Telcom to control the physical connection AND the content. This is bad for the public, bad for startups and bad for business. Mr. Pai, you are a traitor to the American people.
9
Wouldn't that be expected for a Trump-majority agency? He'll be for something, and against it the next. And meanwhile, his appointees wi=ll be going to any one of several directions.
But that's the Trump Way. Two of his strong points are: unpredictability and ignorance. Just how is n opponent supposed to counter that "strategy?"
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
But that's the Trump Way. Two of his strong points are: unpredictability and ignorance. Just how is n opponent supposed to counter that "strategy?"
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
I suspect Mr. Pai has a large piece of the pie in stocks of these companies...
3
He will in the future after he completes his "public service."
2
Making the illegal, legal would be my definition of the United States. This FCC head Pai is one more trained seal for the disreputable Republican Party. Corporatism rules when a regulatory commission asked the regulated for voluntary compliance. Capitulation through Trumpism!
7
Freedom is exclusively for corporate citizens. The rest of us meatbags are at best, sheep to be sheared and at worst, expenses to be removed from balance sheets. This country will not wake up until there is no middle class and most of us are subsistence serfs. But hey, we'll have Twitter. The rich will fight over the remaining scraps and we citizenry will meet at the barricades. Re-tweet that.
5
Yes, thank you. Noam Chomsky has been outlining this for years with tons of proof. And this corporate dominance and control happens because they buy out our representatives.
Someday, not in the too distant future, this will all be realized and we will have a revolution of some sort.
Hope I live to see it. The Trump election was the tip of the iceberg.
Someday, not in the too distant future, this will all be realized and we will have a revolution of some sort.
Hope I live to see it. The Trump election was the tip of the iceberg.
Why is the media burying the fact that it was President Obama who appointed Pai to the FCC (not the chairmanship) on the recommendation of Mitch McConnell? Granted it was a seat that had to be filled by a Republican but surely he could have found someone who was not a corporate stooge. Did they not get Pai?
Obama also appointed the Republican Comey to head the FBI. Apparently he had learned nothing from Clinton's disastrous appointment of another supposedly principles Republican, Louie Freeh, to be FBI Director. Freeh worked hand in glove with the odious Ken Starr to bring Clinton down.
Democrats are like Charlie Brown kicking the football. Right wing Lucy just keeps yanking the ball away but Charlie never learns to stop trusting and start verifying. Fool me once.....
Obama also appointed the Republican Comey to head the FBI. Apparently he had learned nothing from Clinton's disastrous appointment of another supposedly principles Republican, Louie Freeh, to be FBI Director. Freeh worked hand in glove with the odious Ken Starr to bring Clinton down.
Democrats are like Charlie Brown kicking the football. Right wing Lucy just keeps yanking the ball away but Charlie never learns to stop trusting and start verifying. Fool me once.....
5
If this is true it's really outrageous and another example of Obama's naivete.
1
Because, since last November, I am newly very cynical,,, I keep wondering what Pai has been promised once he leaves this position.
3
Might this be Mr. Pai's audition for an even bigger and more lucrative role when he returns to work for one of these companies?
9
Republicans seem to do this so well, giving things precious names while they try to ram a serrated hatchet down your gullet. 'Internet Freedom' that turns us to chattel, 'Right to Work' that shovels money to corporate profiteers at the expense of working families (likewise their new "Working Families Flexibility Act'), 'compassionate conservatism' that wasn't, a 'thousand points of light' to keep us in the darkness, 'Peacekeeper' missiles that kill people and on and on.
It's an old, tired ploy that fools few, yet they keeping trotting them out, trying to make us believe what isn't true. Mr. Pai is very smooth, very glib, and quite able to make you believe his snake oil will cure what ails you. He bears watching like a hawk.
It's an old, tired ploy that fools few, yet they keeping trotting them out, trying to make us believe what isn't true. Mr. Pai is very smooth, very glib, and quite able to make you believe his snake oil will cure what ails you. He bears watching like a hawk.
3
I guarantee he's lining up a big bucks new gig in the private sector, if he hasn't already. Anyone want to make an office pool of how long this tool heads the FCC?
4
Long enough to cash in.
1
Remember Michael Powell, Colin's son and purely coincidentally the former head of the FCC? He's now the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. Imagine that.
3
Ajit Pai views the world as a flea market, and he isn't qualified to run a booth selling used socks.
3
google is a multibillion dollar company - it can lay its own fiberoptic cables or its own network lines, and then "free" itself from the perils of dependency on AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, et al.
Oh, wait. That would be expensive. Much better to lobby Congress and its hand-picked agency bureaucrats to force any ISP that google deals with to do what google wants. Hey, it worked during the Obama administration, right?
When one group of businesses uses government (under Obama) to force another group of businesses to do what it wants, only consumers get shafted.
And remember: So long as government can force ISPs to do what lobbyists want the ISPs to do, then we're just a few hairs away from the shining examples of Internet control provided by China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and all the other Socialist "we know what you should see on the Internet" countries.
Oh, wait. That would be expensive. Much better to lobby Congress and its hand-picked agency bureaucrats to force any ISP that google deals with to do what google wants. Hey, it worked during the Obama administration, right?
When one group of businesses uses government (under Obama) to force another group of businesses to do what it wants, only consumers get shafted.
And remember: So long as government can force ISPs to do what lobbyists want the ISPs to do, then we're just a few hairs away from the shining examples of Internet control provided by China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and all the other Socialist "we know what you should see on the Internet" countries.
3
That's a totally false equivalence. Mandating a level playing field is not in any way equivalent to the government exerting control over internet content - it's actually the opposite. And it isn't just Google and Facebook that are in favor of net neutrality: it's every small internet startup that hopes to become the next Google or Facebook but will never be able to get off the ground if ISP's are allowed to favor their own content over that of competitors.
2
Net Neutrality is not "mandating a level playing field." There's no need to do such a Leftist thing - the only thing needed to achieve a "level playing field" is: The punishment of anyone on the "playing field" who initiates the use of physical force.
What you really mean with your attack on freedom is: You want the businesses that are established to surrender to any and every second-rate startup. That's not the American way - that's the way of crony capitalism. That's the way of the Obama administration.
What you really mean with your attack on freedom is: You want the businesses that are established to surrender to any and every second-rate startup. That's not the American way - that's the way of crony capitalism. That's the way of the Obama administration.
1
This is payback to AT&T and Comcast, end of story. Public interest be damned.
2
I like what Al Gore was talking about in 2000. He said, "the internet needs a major upgrade." that upgrade never came, because phone and cable giants have gotten in the way.
What we need, is a whole new internet. The government can keep giving this one to the phone and cable companies, but we need a completely publicly owned fresh one, free of their monopolistic ways, that can go as fast as technology allows, as opposed to as slow as a cable's sales department thinks they can get away with.
just like when this version of the internet did an end run around the monopolistic mess of compuserve and aol, the cable and phone giants would be left in the dust with their 1998 internet of the past that we still have to deal with today.
What we need, is a whole new internet. The government can keep giving this one to the phone and cable companies, but we need a completely publicly owned fresh one, free of their monopolistic ways, that can go as fast as technology allows, as opposed to as slow as a cable's sales department thinks they can get away with.
just like when this version of the internet did an end run around the monopolistic mess of compuserve and aol, the cable and phone giants would be left in the dust with their 1998 internet of the past that we still have to deal with today.
10
Trashing net neutrality means the internet is for sale. Eliminating EPA regulations on coal burning means the climate is for sale. Opening up drilling for oil off the north slope of Alaska, and reducing monument designations means our public lands are for sale. Killing Obamacare and refusing to consider universal single payer means healthcare is for sale. Dumping Dodd-Frank and eliminating the fiduciary rule means our financial security is for sale. And this is supposed to be a populous President that understands the needs of the common man? There is good reason for anyone with a brain to imagine that people who still support Trump have been seriusly conned and prefer to remain woefully uneducated.
48
Great - I guess if the Internet isn't for sale - then the government dictates how it's used.
1
Regardless of what rules the FCC puts in place, I will keep watching, listening to, and reading Canadian content however I can find it, and American content providers--this newspaper excluded--be damned. It's not called the World Wide Web for nothing.
4
You may not be able to, unless that Canadian content provider pays your ISP monopoly for access to the market you are in.
This sounds like the reverse engineered "religious freedom" that means the freedom to impose their religious ideas on others, rather than my freedom from the religious ideas of others.
22
Net neutrality is today a citizen entitlement like other basic rights, and this could be best ensured through independent regulatory oversight, and not through expression of intent or the voluntary standards as suggested by the telecom giants.
17
Just like with health care, the "market" (which favors the kleptocrats) favors inefficiency and high prices. It's not the "market" idealists favor, as it is weighted in favor of those who gather power to themselves and shut out real competition.
Other countries have much better internet service and much lower costs. America First anyone? First in giving away the store to the few, the wealthy, the proud of not having a conscience or concern for regular people.
These days, internet service is a necessity, and for people working two or three jobs to get by, that's just one more reverse Robin Hood for them.
Other countries have much better internet service and much lower costs. America First anyone? First in giving away the store to the few, the wealthy, the proud of not having a conscience or concern for regular people.
These days, internet service is a necessity, and for people working two or three jobs to get by, that's just one more reverse Robin Hood for them.
84
"Other countries have much better internet service and much lower costs.".....Amen to that, and when is Congress going to start working for us. What can we do? Every time one of these issues comes up call your Congressman and express your opinion. Keep beating on them, everyday if necessary. It is the only way they will ever get the message.
2
oh, they get the message. then they immediately toss it in the trash bin. there isn't a congressperson out there, local or federal, who isn't a party robot. try writing to roy blunt, one of my senators. the spin response, if there even is one, is stomach-turning.
1
Ross offers occasional over-the-top ideas to get the conversation started on solutions to entrenched and pressing issues; and occasionally I’ve responded with my own. This strikes me as a good opportunity.
I’ve long believed, from the right, that there are some things best left to the state and some best left to entrepreneurial chaos and individual greed, the capitalist cauldron that has moved more people out of extreme poverty to sufficiency than any other force in history. As a consultant, when confronted by a CEO who wants to develop new ideas but doubts that his company’s culture can embrace them successfully, I’ve counseled an incubator, owned but not explicitly associated with the parent company. You give the incubator freedom to be nimble, fund them adequately and tell them to remain within the law but get results. And you await those results. For the successes, you grow and mature them within the incubator; and, when mature, you fold them back into the company to benefit from greater resources and structure – sacrificing explosive growth for dependable growth.
Maybe it’s time we nationalized the pipes aspect of the broadband carriers. They’re certainly mature enough – hidebound even. I’m not sure that we wouldn’t benefit by doing the same with electrical distribution (but not production). Healthcare at basic levels is another example where collectivization could redound to our benefit.
And imagine what Trump could get in trade from Dems for THAT.
I’ve long believed, from the right, that there are some things best left to the state and some best left to entrepreneurial chaos and individual greed, the capitalist cauldron that has moved more people out of extreme poverty to sufficiency than any other force in history. As a consultant, when confronted by a CEO who wants to develop new ideas but doubts that his company’s culture can embrace them successfully, I’ve counseled an incubator, owned but not explicitly associated with the parent company. You give the incubator freedom to be nimble, fund them adequately and tell them to remain within the law but get results. And you await those results. For the successes, you grow and mature them within the incubator; and, when mature, you fold them back into the company to benefit from greater resources and structure – sacrificing explosive growth for dependable growth.
Maybe it’s time we nationalized the pipes aspect of the broadband carriers. They’re certainly mature enough – hidebound even. I’m not sure that we wouldn’t benefit by doing the same with electrical distribution (but not production). Healthcare at basic levels is another example where collectivization could redound to our benefit.
And imagine what Trump could get in trade from Dems for THAT.
15
RL, thanks (1) for the personal history, which is interesting and (2) for a creative idea presented from knowledge and intelligence. I might quibble with the buzzword "nationalize" but this kind of thinking would perhaps advance the US to the modern world. Other countries have much better internet at much lower cost.
4
"I’ve long believed, from the right, that there are some things best left to the state...."
Like slavery?
Like slavery?
1
Richard, have you gone nuts? I thought you were some kind of Ayn Randist, and it turns out you're a socialist.
But I'm with you. Yeah, nationalize the pipelines. Let the content providers compete — on s level playing ground.
And yeah, nationalize health care.
But I'm with you. Yeah, nationalize the pipelines. Let the content providers compete — on s level playing ground.
And yeah, nationalize health care.
3
(1) I'm not a fan of Donald Trump.
(2) I'm not a fan of Comcast.
When you consider to two above statements logically that would be the reasoning for me to be against this but times do change and what might have been a no brainer 5 years ago may not be anymore.
I had Comcast about 10 years ago, when the introductory period ended the rate doubled and because I don't watch TV Comcast also wanted to charge me $10 a month as a "high band-width usuage" customer.
Fast forward to a week ago when I started to get service again from Comcast. I figured I would be having to argue about bandwidth with things like NetFlix which didn't exist ten years ago.
By all appearances Comcast is willing to deal the deal because they become a gatekeeper for the ads I may or not see. For me as a consumer, the internet and local phone service with local taxes adding up to $75 a month is a sweet deal. FYI: I don't do NetFlix.
Like I said at the beginning of this I'm not a fan of President Trump but he scored a home run on this one.
(2) I'm not a fan of Comcast.
When you consider to two above statements logically that would be the reasoning for me to be against this but times do change and what might have been a no brainer 5 years ago may not be anymore.
I had Comcast about 10 years ago, when the introductory period ended the rate doubled and because I don't watch TV Comcast also wanted to charge me $10 a month as a "high band-width usuage" customer.
Fast forward to a week ago when I started to get service again from Comcast. I figured I would be having to argue about bandwidth with things like NetFlix which didn't exist ten years ago.
By all appearances Comcast is willing to deal the deal because they become a gatekeeper for the ads I may or not see. For me as a consumer, the internet and local phone service with local taxes adding up to $75 a month is a sweet deal. FYI: I don't do NetFlix.
Like I said at the beginning of this I'm not a fan of President Trump but he scored a home run on this one.
4
Warning. As soon as your two years are up, you will have the same problem. They want new customers and are willing to deal you in. An old customer like me try to get my over 80/month for internet only reduced? Fuhgettabahtit. And I have no choice, like many others, because of where I live.
32
How is Donald Trump responsible for the Comcast bundling of service which they've been doing for years?
And please don't tell me this is some ignorant, yahoo-opinion and this person is condoning someone like Trump because they get "good cable".
And please don't tell me this is some ignorant, yahoo-opinion and this person is condoning someone like Trump because they get "good cable".
2
Home run? The game has not yet begun. The starting pitcher is warmed-up and soon the home time will come to bat. 1-2-3 your out. Then you will see the visitors' hit home runs, aka, price increases, lessened service, privileged access, which will wake you up to the utter rout lasting 4 (8, the horror) more years.
What would prevent isp's from throttling political talk with which they disagree?
129
Already happening.
2
I agree, that's the very frightening question this article fails to address.
1
Is anyone really surprised to learn that the resume of newly appointed FCC Chairman Pai includes a stint as a lawyer for Verizon?
208
The real job-killer and innovation crusher would be doing away with net neutrality.
The GOP regulatory theory seems to be ignore the elephant in the room ... and the elephant is catering to big money interests no matter what, or how critical, the public interest might be.
Please, bring some intelligence to GOP regulatory pandering!
The GOP regulatory theory seems to be ignore the elephant in the room ... and the elephant is catering to big money interests no matter what, or how critical, the public interest might be.
Please, bring some intelligence to GOP regulatory pandering!
77
All the GOP cares about is kickbacks from these companies. Show me a Republican Congresscritter and I'll show you an influence peddling crook.
4
We have no problem with Mr. Pai being friendly to industry, but his duty is to protect the people using the Internet; we prefer not to encourage gouging by the big companies...once the smaller competitors are wiped out.
136
We are being gouged already. Americans pay double what other developed economies pay for internet service. In thriving Asian metropolitan areas (and Paris), service is 8 times faster than in major US cities.
Clearly net neutrality doesn't go far enough. We need to to break up the veritcally integrated ISP/content providers (e.g. Comcast) into highly regulated, low-cost utilities that provide high-speed service into our homes and businesses only. Then content providers compete for end-user customers with network equal access.
Clearly net neutrality doesn't go far enough. We need to to break up the veritcally integrated ISP/content providers (e.g. Comcast) into highly regulated, low-cost utilities that provide high-speed service into our homes and businesses only. Then content providers compete for end-user customers with network equal access.
3
"[Mr. Pai] says, broadband companies would refrain from blocking or slowing the content of competitors. He has not said how he would ensure that."
As with dealings involving Putin and Crimea, for example, one merely picks up the WH phone and says, "Stop that!" What, nobody knew it was that simple?
As with dealings involving Putin and Crimea, for example, one merely picks up the WH phone and says, "Stop that!" What, nobody knew it was that simple?
5
As a long time Times subscriber who works (but does not speak) for a company in the telecom industry, I'm disappointed with the Times' coverage of the Net Neutrality issue. There's a whole history of separable but inter-related issues about the evolution of telephone service, regulation, competition, and the Internet that the Times and its contributors (are you with me Dr. Wu?) to unpack for the readers. For example, the end of rules for the Internet is in principle separable from the means of Title II classifcation. From my perspective Net Neutrality is pretty much the phantom menace -no one can point to the real hurt done - it's all what *might* happen, but which despite the years of existence of the Internet, has not.
For an alternate perspective you might point your readers to Chairman Pai's recent speech
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation
which includes, by the way, some very concerning statements about the "neutrality" of the Free Press. (I'd appreciate a fact check on these, in fact).
Net Neutrality also gets tangled up with the question of why aren't there more alternatives for broadband service. The answer is simply that it's difficult expensive to put the boots on the ground to deliver broadband. In its experiment with providing basic broadband Google would only provide service if a suffiicent portion of an area signed up, and even now has backed off from expansion.
For an alternate perspective you might point your readers to Chairman Pai's recent speech
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation
which includes, by the way, some very concerning statements about the "neutrality" of the Free Press. (I'd appreciate a fact check on these, in fact).
Net Neutrality also gets tangled up with the question of why aren't there more alternatives for broadband service. The answer is simply that it's difficult expensive to put the boots on the ground to deliver broadband. In its experiment with providing basic broadband Google would only provide service if a suffiicent portion of an area signed up, and even now has backed off from expansion.
6
When Republicans say one thing, they mean the opposite. They are helping patients, they are helping women, they are helping the environment, they are helping families, they are so concern about America...Uh hum and I have an apt with a nice ocean view in the desert.
13
At one point, the Bank told me my tax payments could no longer be made at the Bank. My Fed Tax payments had to be made via the internet.
As long as the feds require me to pay TAXES by internet, it is a utility.
As long as the feds require me to pay TAXES by internet, it is a utility.
145
That was a very "swampy" move from Trump who campaigned on draining it.
45
It's time for columnist and others to stop using this phrase with tongue-in-cheek "alternative facts." There is no such tinng as alternative "facts" facts are not subject to alternatives. Opinions are subject to alternatives but not "facts." It is Esther a fact that the earth is not flat or the earth is flat. There is no alternative: it's dialectic, flat, not flat. Only one "fact" is correct. There is no alternative.
21
Alternative fact is just another name for a lie. People get that.
1
Mr. Pai is a tool for the internet providers - just watch how his facial expressions belie his commentary.
The point is that whether you want it or not, Internet access is not a privilege it is a necessity.
This is just one in a string of Trump induced nightmares.
The point is that whether you want it or not, Internet access is not a privilege it is a necessity.
This is just one in a string of Trump induced nightmares.
68
How does keeping America behind with expensive, low speed internet help us get ahead? The rest of the wired world will eat us for lunch if we remain so behind technologically.
How did just a small handful of private ISPs become the controllers of the internet anyhow? Too much power (& money) in the hands of too few is dangerous.
It's corporate fascism.
How did just a small handful of private ISPs become the controllers of the internet anyhow? Too much power (& money) in the hands of too few is dangerous.
It's corporate fascism.
127
Net Neutrality means preventing some companies, like Netflix, from paying IPSs to ensure Netflix movies aren't slowed by sites showing kitten videos. Doesn't it follow that we should also have Shipping Neutrality? The government should prevent Fedex and UPS from providing faster service to companies that are willing to pay for it. Everyone thane would get average delivery times.
2
Can we sue if we do not get the bandwidth we pay for - regardless of the data packet content?
If I pay for high bandwidth sufficient to stream Netfix, and Netflix at their end pays for connecting with the bandwidth they need to transmit the data, what is the problem? Ah, the gate keeper on the consumer side wants to gouge even more.
If the big ISP do not want to provide data neutral Internet broadband , then get the hell out of the way and allow competition who will.
If I pay for high bandwidth sufficient to stream Netfix, and Netflix at their end pays for connecting with the bandwidth they need to transmit the data, what is the problem? Ah, the gate keeper on the consumer side wants to gouge even more.
If the big ISP do not want to provide data neutral Internet broadband , then get the hell out of the way and allow competition who will.
50
I already usually don't get the bandwidth I pay for. TWC is clever enough to call it "up to 200 ". Sometimes I do, many times I don't. And their router is terrible for wifi.
These players monopolize local utility right of ways to preclude competition.
You can sue the corporate giants, of course, but you'll never get to court. Look at the terms of service you approved when you signed up. It's in the fine print: You agreed that arbitration will be used to settle any disputes. Your constitutional right to seek justice in the courts was simply taken away, and you had no way to avoid that restriction if you wanted internet service.
This is yet another example of consumer rights that have been stolen by unrestrained capitalists and their paid accomplices in Congress.
This is yet another example of consumer rights that have been stolen by unrestrained capitalists and their paid accomplices in Congress.
1
The hardest part of dealing with this situation is Mr Pai's blatant disregard for the truth.... it verges on the obscene and as a public servant he will pay no price for this dishonesty.The Internet is a utility and can be described in no other way. If Pai really cared about the Internet and Net Neutrality... access for all etc.,He would get back to working on the FCC's attempts at revoking the absurd municipal broadband laws that almost all the states have in place.
Many years ago the ISPs worked out cozy deals, paying or bribing state and local politicians to enact laws restricting local public broadband systems (sorry I forgot its called lobbying and donations).
His former employer Verizon and its legal teams were at the forefront of this lobbying .Changing these bylaws and rules would go a long way to introducing some kind of choice for the public.
But then we cant really expect them to have actual competition can we....
.
Many years ago the ISPs worked out cozy deals, paying or bribing state and local politicians to enact laws restricting local public broadband systems (sorry I forgot its called lobbying and donations).
His former employer Verizon and its legal teams were at the forefront of this lobbying .Changing these bylaws and rules would go a long way to introducing some kind of choice for the public.
But then we cant really expect them to have actual competition can we....
.
104
Lousy service and no choice at all is par for the course in the "sell 'em to the rentiers" USA.
Classic GOP doublespeak. 1984 is their instruction manual.
70
Maybe you haven't read the book you cite, but it's a warning about absolute power. Our system spreads power among three branches of government, not to mention a voter's right to say NO.
Vote Republican and be sold into slavery.
The American public is more pathetic than a beaten spouse who just keeps coming back for more.
The American public is more pathetic than a beaten spouse who just keeps coming back for more.
162
That spouse is endangering us kids as well.
Reminder: the majority of Americans voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and all the protests/marches/resistance since November 9th is fighting back. Looking forward to the grand jury recommendations about the Trump/Russia connection and the challenge of the impeachments.
When do we stop calling Trump "president" and his cronies "the administration"? This a kleptocracy, pure and simple and we should just use the term "corporate overlords".
I don't think I can sustain this level of rage for another 3.75 years without a heart attack.
I don't think I can sustain this level of rage for another 3.75 years without a heart attack.
195
Fight. Resist — Proactively! Make the Trumpistas have the heart attack.
Join support lawsuits against the administration. Hassle or reward your congressional representatives. Write your local paper. Become an activist, get your exercise, and your heart will take care of itself.
Join support lawsuits against the administration. Hassle or reward your congressional representatives. Write your local paper. Become an activist, get your exercise, and your heart will take care of itself.
While this administration and its stooges can hide behind their alternative facts, this bald-faced lie is pretty easy to see for what it is: an blatant attempt to give a sweetheart deal to the ISPs and put the screws to consumers and small businesses.
This proposal is all the more distressing when one considers how reliant we all are on the internet for news, access to educational and scientific data, etc. Only if your goal is for the rich to get richer does this policy make any sense.
This proposal is all the more distressing when one considers how reliant we all are on the internet for news, access to educational and scientific data, etc. Only if your goal is for the rich to get richer does this policy make any sense.
89
"Ajit Pai, wants to give big telecom companies carte blanche to treat the content of their subsidiaries and partners more favorably than information from other companies — a practice that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are already starting to employ."
Exactly. AT&T and Verizon each are losing 300,000 wireless customers/quarter and are looking to redefine themselves as content providers, not phone companies. If they can throttle the Internet as they wish, they will be a toll gate to content. Not only will content cost more, it will be censored to suit the least imaginative companies in American history, dragged screaming into the 20th century only by anti-trust legislation.
Exactly. AT&T and Verizon each are losing 300,000 wireless customers/quarter and are looking to redefine themselves as content providers, not phone companies. If they can throttle the Internet as they wish, they will be a toll gate to content. Not only will content cost more, it will be censored to suit the least imaginative companies in American history, dragged screaming into the 20th century only by anti-trust legislation.
135
So if ATT, Verizon, and Comcast can all offer special deals for their own content, how can the existing regulatory regime claim to be working?
I say let's free the internet of regulation - especially regulation intended for a monopoly telephone company of the 1930's - and see what happens. I suspect in a decade the ISP industry will be dead and replaced by wireless systems so today's regulations will be seen to be as pointless as ICC regulation of trucking.
I say let's free the internet of regulation - especially regulation intended for a monopoly telephone company of the 1930's - and see what happens. I suspect in a decade the ISP industry will be dead and replaced by wireless systems so today's regulations will be seen to be as pointless as ICC regulation of trucking.
In certain ways:
—This is more important than climate change, because what will we be able to accomplish once information is owned by those who seek to control and profit from the destruction of our environment?
—More important than Supreme Court nominees. Because when we have no voice, it doesn’t matter how loudly we plead our cases.
—More important than power itself, because information is power in its purest and cheapest form. Once we relinquish the ability to express ourselves, guns and bombs become superfluous.
In the end, Winston loved Big Brother for one reason only: Big Brother controlled his mind.
—This is more important than climate change, because what will we be able to accomplish once information is owned by those who seek to control and profit from the destruction of our environment?
—More important than Supreme Court nominees. Because when we have no voice, it doesn’t matter how loudly we plead our cases.
—More important than power itself, because information is power in its purest and cheapest form. Once we relinquish the ability to express ourselves, guns and bombs become superfluous.
In the end, Winston loved Big Brother for one reason only: Big Brother controlled his mind.
2
Great news. More of fact based analysis of the media at the FCC. Just like we have fact based science and environmental studies at the EPA. And fact based on economic data collection and policy making by the commerce Dept and at the OMB.
Thank you, Citizens United.
Why should the government try to encourage investment. It is a private, non-regulated company, which means they should do their own investment and hope to succeed. It is called competition.
What happens if the de-regulation plans are allowed and still not new investment. Then what? How to Put the milk back in the bottle then?
Thank you, Citizens United.
Why should the government try to encourage investment. It is a private, non-regulated company, which means they should do their own investment and hope to succeed. It is called competition.
What happens if the de-regulation plans are allowed and still not new investment. Then what? How to Put the milk back in the bottle then?
1
Without taking a position on the merits of the argument the paper's editorial staff puts forth, the NYT does a disservice to its readers and its professed objectivity by failing to point out that Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman, though appointed to that chairmanship position by the Trump administration, was in fact named as an FCC commissioner by the Obama administration.
The big four cable companies have no interest in providing internet service to rural areas because the profit margins are insufficient for their investors. They have, for example, rejected state grants to provide broadband service to real areas of New York State. Our only hope for obtaining and maintaining broadband service in rural areas is the survival of small providers. The FTC can promote and support internet service to rural areas of our country by protecting small internet providers from being squeezed out of urban regions by the anticompetitive practices that so-called net neutrality would permit.
4
Because NetFlix traffic accounts for nearly half the broadband data consumed by homes, it's right that their free ride should be questioned. The cable companies spent tens of billions to give us fast speeds; Netflix doesn't pay a dime for this carriage. My Time Warner cable (now Spectrum?) works great, and I'm grateful.
Let netflix pay a bit to make sure we all keep getting fast internet access. The article mentions "big internet businesses" will be fine, but the smaller ones are not the ones that are abusing the last mile connection. The big ones can afford to pay a little to reach customers. Otherwise, the broadband companies won't have incentive to continue investing and increasing our speeds.
Let netflix pay a bit to make sure we all keep getting fast internet access. The article mentions "big internet businesses" will be fine, but the smaller ones are not the ones that are abusing the last mile connection. The big ones can afford to pay a little to reach customers. Otherwise, the broadband companies won't have incentive to continue investing and increasing our speeds.
1
This is simply big business buying decisions. It has nothing to do with what is best for consumers, the economy, or common sense. It is simply corporations buying off government to make a sizable return on that payoff.
10
The president claims to be pro-business. He needs to hire some technology-savvy advisers. Let's say a business has only ne choice for an Internet Service Provider and that service goes down for a period of time, they have no email, Internet access and possibly a loss of business if the are a commerce site as well. Redundancy is a common term in technology. Here in Hawaii we have a choice of 2 ISPs, cable and telecom. Many businesses have both connections so it is less likely they will lose a connection. And all of those big data centers you hear about like Amazon, Microsoft, Google also have redundant connections to limit the risk of loss of service. So please Mr. Trump and Mr. Pai please let the companies compete and don't limit consumer and business choices. As the article points out the big companies have plenty of money to throw around, how about bringing Internet access and higher speeds to more Americans? A system/Internet security engineer by profession. Thank you.
2
The Repubs and this administration will not be satisfied until they have privatized every aspect of human need and desire. Education is the worst, as we watch alternative truth become the message wherever states rights say it can be. Never mind the evidence that Charters are often inferior and negligent. Fox and Breitbart, etc. spew their propaganda to targeted audiences trained to be ignorant. Net neutrality ensures that the truth is available to all, ultimately. At least if you wanted to find it, you might. Information is power. Save our power. They have enough.
3
Back in the 1990s, the cable and telecom companies were basically transport “pipes” that used to simply facilitate access to the Internet via 3rd party ISPs collocated in their central offices (COs)… until the Internet uprooted their traditional business model and became the go to network for video, voice and data. That’s when they usurped the ISP role for themselves and, as owners of the pipes that connect to the Internet; they believe that the Internet cannot be neutral.
These telecom and cable companies now want to displace the Over the Top (OTT) service providers such as Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc., who have begun cannibalizing their video services market by offering video as streaming content over the Internet, which is still largely accessed through their pipes. But the Board is right, in that, if net neutrality is scrapped, these telecom and cable giants will be able to “to treat the content of their subsidiaries and partners more favorably than information from other companies.” As a consumer of Amazon and Netflix services, I will eventually bear the cost of that unfavorable treatment by Verizon (my ISP) towards these OTTs.
Also, net neutrality pits many startups vs. telecom and cable giants. It’s a reverse case of David vs. Goliath, where not only Goliath wants to stomp out all the Davids, but also one where we petty consumers pay the price. Without net neutrality, “there will be fewer choices and less innovation” and that’s bad for America in the long run.
These telecom and cable companies now want to displace the Over the Top (OTT) service providers such as Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc., who have begun cannibalizing their video services market by offering video as streaming content over the Internet, which is still largely accessed through their pipes. But the Board is right, in that, if net neutrality is scrapped, these telecom and cable giants will be able to “to treat the content of their subsidiaries and partners more favorably than information from other companies.” As a consumer of Amazon and Netflix services, I will eventually bear the cost of that unfavorable treatment by Verizon (my ISP) towards these OTTs.
Also, net neutrality pits many startups vs. telecom and cable giants. It’s a reverse case of David vs. Goliath, where not only Goliath wants to stomp out all the Davids, but also one where we petty consumers pay the price. Without net neutrality, “there will be fewer choices and less innovation” and that’s bad for America in the long run.
25
And Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. Pai is just another industry bigwig joining government so he can tip the scale in favor of his former and future employer. The internet has become much more than a "utility" for us all. There must be regulation to insure equal, affordable access. Call & write the FCC to comment. Ask your members of Congress to consider legislation in lieu of a partisan commission. #resist
7
Let's be clear broadband internet has supplanted the telephone. Data in the form of voice, video, transfer of written material should be treated as a utility as an ever larger number of people and businesses are relying on the internet as they once did the telephone.
Even with net neutrality the U.S. has the most expensive and slowest internet service than any other country in the world and the least amount of competition.
Eliminating net neutrality won't increase competition and it won't make U.S. internet competitive or even on par with the rest of the world.
The FCC under this administration, like many of the administration's other business/corporate friendly positions, will result in higher prices and lower service.
When is enough enough?
Even with net neutrality the U.S. has the most expensive and slowest internet service than any other country in the world and the least amount of competition.
Eliminating net neutrality won't increase competition and it won't make U.S. internet competitive or even on par with the rest of the world.
The FCC under this administration, like many of the administration's other business/corporate friendly positions, will result in higher prices and lower service.
When is enough enough?
56
The FCC has been a toothless and gutless regulator for decades. Occasionally someone like Tom Wheeler will score a win for consumers and protect the public interest, but much of the time (virtually all of the time when Republicans are in the majority of this ridiculously politicized agency) they are the obedient and faithful servants of big media.
52
The Internet, both in content and transportation of data, is increasingly becoming an oligopoly of big players and its effects are already showing, from tumbling ad revenue for developers, artists and publishers (Alphabet cornered the market) to successful lobby for increasingly invasive extraction of personal data (like browsing history), monetised by the same big companies.
The Trump administration is doing the complete opposite of what it should be doing, which is to prevent further concentration of power in the Internet industry by looking at past acquisitions like WhatsApp by Facebook, Skype by Microsoft, ... seriously questioning future ones like AT&T-Time Warner, even forcing breakups in some cases.
The Trump administration is doing the complete opposite of what it should be doing, which is to prevent further concentration of power in the Internet industry by looking at past acquisitions like WhatsApp by Facebook, Skype by Microsoft, ... seriously questioning future ones like AT&T-Time Warner, even forcing breakups in some cases.
9
Under the Trump administration the FCC is now the chief lobbyist for the telecom companies.
Verizon and other lead the charge against net neutrality.
Internet providers shouldn't be allowed to charge different companies, more or less for their data, or to slow down, or block, access to Web sites and services they don't like. (ie Netflix or Google)
Neutrality has been a core democratizing principle of the Internet.
Net neutrality protects innovation.
Verizon and other lead the charge against net neutrality.
Internet providers shouldn't be allowed to charge different companies, more or less for their data, or to slow down, or block, access to Web sites and services they don't like. (ie Netflix or Google)
Neutrality has been a core democratizing principle of the Internet.
Net neutrality protects innovation.
6
Access to broadband should be treated as an infrastructure project. And this does not have the same political implications as building bridges, tunnels, or, um, walls. It only requires Trump standing up to greed
(Yeah, right, I know) that is making needed technology prohibitively expensive for too many.
(Yeah, right, I know) that is making needed technology prohibitively expensive for too many.
4
Typical GOP nonsense
Republican voters will gobble up the propaganda and start saying that trump freed up cable from terrible regulations while promoting freedom for customers. There is a complete disassociation from reality.
It allows politicians to do something completely contrary to the title of the bill or the best interests of their voters
Republican voters will gobble up the propaganda and start saying that trump freed up cable from terrible regulations while promoting freedom for customers. There is a complete disassociation from reality.
It allows politicians to do something completely contrary to the title of the bill or the best interests of their voters
4
This is like this is like one of those Johnathan Swift proposals Ross Douthat comes up with. What else can we privatize? Let us look:
1) Grammar School: Let's charge all parents but let's charge the poorer ones the most. Their children will need more attention because they have been exposed to fewer words.
2) Public Streets and Roads: corporations need public access more than private citizens ---they produce jobs. The average person should carry the cost on a per-mile driven basis. Average persons do not produce jobs.
3) Guaranteed Medical Care: This is an absolute must but only for contagious diseases. If average people carry the cost with a little overage so higher income earners won't have to carry the full burden of their own health care things will work out better for everyone.
4) Higher Education: Again, those who have the most are in the best position to give the most. So---it's only fair that they should carry the smallest burden with all the good stuff they will one day contribute to the rest of us.
Donald Trump knows these things---we are lucky he and his advisors share them with us.
1) Grammar School: Let's charge all parents but let's charge the poorer ones the most. Their children will need more attention because they have been exposed to fewer words.
2) Public Streets and Roads: corporations need public access more than private citizens ---they produce jobs. The average person should carry the cost on a per-mile driven basis. Average persons do not produce jobs.
3) Guaranteed Medical Care: This is an absolute must but only for contagious diseases. If average people carry the cost with a little overage so higher income earners won't have to carry the full burden of their own health care things will work out better for everyone.
4) Higher Education: Again, those who have the most are in the best position to give the most. So---it's only fair that they should carry the smallest burden with all the good stuff they will one day contribute to the rest of us.
Donald Trump knows these things---we are lucky he and his advisors share them with us.
5
Just another example of Trump giving more money to the wealthiest and most powerful. Reasoned argument counts for nothing in this administration. Reverse Robin Hood is the only policy that matters.
2
where I live, the local power utility is a Coop. We (they) bought a small local internet company a few years back, because it seemed obvious to us that the Internet is just another utility, and needs to be treated as such to optimize access and cost. The Coop then got a few large grants, both federal and State) to pay for laying fiber optic cable along every major road in our County here in Washington State. Then the Coop (which we all own of course) started offering internet access at an initial speed 4 to 10 times the speed of the Telecom giant that had monopolized our community access and phone lines for the past 30 years. This Telecom Giant was locally infamous for providing poor customer service and poorer line maintenance. Next, the Coop began subsidizing customers to switch over to Voice over Internet landlines, even donating battery backups to some of us, so our phones would work just fine during the occasional power outage. The result is that the big broadband company is losing its customers faster than anyone here ever thought possible. So to be perfectly clear: the citizens of our rural County now own the phone company, the Internet provider, and the electricity provider. Try it. You'll like it.
20
What a great idea!
Capitalism in this country has never been about free speech rather it has been about the freedom to fleece the unwary buyer. As the FCC is bought by these monopolistic internet companies our freedom to use this new technology is threatened by profits and the desire to mold our thoughts and actions according to the need for the greatest profits. With the pirate in chief in the White house this is all that will ever matter though Trump will claim the right to tweet his lies with impunity on that very medium.
5
Monopolies aren't healthy long-term because they stifle growth and innovation. Once the major companies have total control they won't have any incentives to offer competitive prices and options to their customers. We've been here with the airlines as they cut routes, raised prices, started adding fees for everything, and started to demonstrate declining customer service because they knew that we had no other options.
The beauty of the internet is that anyone can start a business or a blog from their home and watch it become a multi-million dollar business if they have a good idea. That may not be possible if net neutrality is eliminated. We'll see mergers and then the providers at the top will decide who wins and who never gets off the ground.
We do best as a country when we have regulated capitalism. Then everyone plays by the same rules with a level playing field and the best idea wins. And consumers get to decide what succeeds or fails without feeling like cattle.
The beauty of the internet is that anyone can start a business or a blog from their home and watch it become a multi-million dollar business if they have a good idea. That may not be possible if net neutrality is eliminated. We'll see mergers and then the providers at the top will decide who wins and who never gets off the ground.
We do best as a country when we have regulated capitalism. Then everyone plays by the same rules with a level playing field and the best idea wins. And consumers get to decide what succeeds or fails without feeling like cattle.
185
In GOP-speak (a/k/a Orwellian doublespeak), freedom = slavery, and "internet freedom" is a hegemony of monopolies.
1
Or the new businesses you describe will still be started, but not within the US -- based from overseas. Innovation and digital entrepreneurship may be largely driven offshore.
I don't understand your comparison to the airlines. The airlines fell apart after deregulation, and AFTER they had to compete with carriers like "Southwest." Americans are funny in that they want everything as cheap as possible which they proved by booking so much on Southwest that the other airlines had to follow suit, and cut amenities to lower fares. I don't know what era of airline history you are comparing this to, but airfares were much higher before deregulation. So consider your scenario in the reverse - if the FCC regulates the internet down to a few providers it will become more expensive. Time will tell what it will do for service. If we are using airlines as an example I personally would like to go back to the time of more regulation.
"Big internet businesses ... are well established and have the money to cut special deals with broadband companies." Why does this remind me of John D. Rockefeller's 19th-century sweetheart deals with railroads to give him huge discounts or rebates and interfere with his rivals' shipments?
204
The salient point of this article is that if broadband companies are being hurt by the current regulatory environment, then why are they gobbling each other up? Isn't buying another company an investment?
They aren't being hurt. They are making big money and lots of it. What Pai wants to do is increase their profits even more. This is is just more trickle down, supply side economics. The more money corporate America makes, the better off people are. Where have we heard that before?
Also, Pai states that the internet should not be treated like a utility. Duh! Buddy, that's exactly what it is. High speed data communications are just as essential to any business as electricity is. Business hinges on the reliability of that pipeline. The net goes down and everything goes down with it. It must be regulated as a matter of national security. Profits must take a back seat to reliability even if it cost the providers a little more.
The coal miner jobs aren't coming back. But IT, high tech jobs are. That's why the pipeline is so crucial.
They aren't being hurt. They are making big money and lots of it. What Pai wants to do is increase their profits even more. This is is just more trickle down, supply side economics. The more money corporate America makes, the better off people are. Where have we heard that before?
Also, Pai states that the internet should not be treated like a utility. Duh! Buddy, that's exactly what it is. High speed data communications are just as essential to any business as electricity is. Business hinges on the reliability of that pipeline. The net goes down and everything goes down with it. It must be regulated as a matter of national security. Profits must take a back seat to reliability even if it cost the providers a little more.
The coal miner jobs aren't coming back. But IT, high tech jobs are. That's why the pipeline is so crucial.
386
"Also, Pai states that the internet should not be treated like a utility. Duh! Buddy, that's exactly what it is."
Precisely. The Rural Electrification Act and the expansion of telephone coverage years ago speak to this. So-called Common Carrier law dates way back.
Pai is either ignorant of the motivation behind these or, as is more likely, has caved to the telecomm lobbyists.
Precisely. The Rural Electrification Act and the expansion of telephone coverage years ago speak to this. So-called Common Carrier law dates way back.
Pai is either ignorant of the motivation behind these or, as is more likely, has caved to the telecomm lobbyists.
10
Trump administration is pushing the idea that privacy of little JOHN Q Public is not worth a dime, so they will allow internet service providers to mine the customers data. However, the republican Supreme Court ruled that privacy of multi-millionaires and billionaires must be protected so that they can donate incognito to politicians under the guise of Citizens United. Wonder if the SCOTUS would be willing to protect the privacy of the little guy!
6
Customers are truly powerless when it comes to ISPs. They offer plans in the form of megabits download speed, but the plan/contract always says "up to" this or that speed. So, as a consumer I might pay for 25 MBs & be getting 5 or 2 - perfectly legal since they only promise "up to 25 MBs." If my downloads are slow, I have no way of knowing if ordering a higher plan (and paying quite a bit more) is necessary. Have they truly given me 25 megs? Have they slowed it down so that I will pay for more (of course, that's "up to more")?
If I pay for electric, I know if it is on; ditto for water. If I pay for phone service or cable, I know if I have it. Only with the ISP do I have a contract saying "up to" so many megs and absolutely NO way to measure what I actually get. The system is already so very stacked against the consumer.
If I pay for electric, I know if it is on; ditto for water. If I pay for phone service or cable, I know if I have it. Only with the ISP do I have a contract saying "up to" so many megs and absolutely NO way to measure what I actually get. The system is already so very stacked against the consumer.
349
Well, it is possible to measure your internet speed---try speedtest.net for example.
But I agree with you. ISPs have free reign to treat their customers like garbage because they know in most cases they are one of only a handful, if not the only provider in your area.
ISPs have had it too good for too long. They should either be treated like the monopolies they are and broken down into smaller companies that actually have to compete to survive, or they should be treated like utilities and heavily regulated for the common good of providing Americans with an essential service at a reasonable price.
Mr. Pai's attempts to further deregulate an already dysfunctional industry are just another example of the commitment the Trump administrations has shown thus far to advance a policy agenda whose only unifying theme is cronyism.
Some populist...
But I agree with you. ISPs have free reign to treat their customers like garbage because they know in most cases they are one of only a handful, if not the only provider in your area.
ISPs have had it too good for too long. They should either be treated like the monopolies they are and broken down into smaller companies that actually have to compete to survive, or they should be treated like utilities and heavily regulated for the common good of providing Americans with an essential service at a reasonable price.
Mr. Pai's attempts to further deregulate an already dysfunctional industry are just another example of the commitment the Trump administrations has shown thus far to advance a policy agenda whose only unifying theme is cronyism.
Some populist...
10
While I love a good opportunity to complain about ISPs, I think you may be a little bit confused about how networks speeds are measured. It's not really your fault because ISPs love cultivating this kind of confusion.
In the networking world, network speed is almost always measured in bits per second. This is also how broadband speeds are measured. It's usually abbreviated Mb/s (note the small "b") or Mbps.
To make things more confusing, most software measures the speed of downloads and uploads in bytes per second, usually abbreviated MB/s. A byte is 8 bits, so if you have a 25Mbps (that's 25 million bits per second) connection, the best you're going to get is about 3.125MB/s. Realistically, you probably aren't going to get those speeds most of the time due to protocol overhead. When you download a file, the server (and your computer) also need to exchange important bits of information. This includes things like the progress of the file transfer, checksums to ensure that the data hasn't been garbled during transmission, and information about the speed of the network so the server doesn't sent the file more quickly than the network can handle. You can think of it as a sending an envelope in the mail. Downloading using a wireless network can also have a huge effect on download speeds.
In the networking world, network speed is almost always measured in bits per second. This is also how broadband speeds are measured. It's usually abbreviated Mb/s (note the small "b") or Mbps.
To make things more confusing, most software measures the speed of downloads and uploads in bytes per second, usually abbreviated MB/s. A byte is 8 bits, so if you have a 25Mbps (that's 25 million bits per second) connection, the best you're going to get is about 3.125MB/s. Realistically, you probably aren't going to get those speeds most of the time due to protocol overhead. When you download a file, the server (and your computer) also need to exchange important bits of information. This includes things like the progress of the file transfer, checksums to ensure that the data hasn't been garbled during transmission, and information about the speed of the network so the server doesn't sent the file more quickly than the network can handle. You can think of it as a sending an envelope in the mail. Downloading using a wireless network can also have a huge effect on download speeds.
2
Use speedtest.net to test your upload and download speeds.
Very often, your speed is a function of the number of people in your neighborhood who are online at the time. It's a shared medium. That being said, broadband speeds here in the US pale in comparison to speeds in other parts of the world, like Europe and Asia.
Competition is a great thing. That's the problem as stated in the article. We have few choices here.
Very often, your speed is a function of the number of people in your neighborhood who are online at the time. It's a shared medium. That being said, broadband speeds here in the US pale in comparison to speeds in other parts of the world, like Europe and Asia.
Competition is a great thing. That's the problem as stated in the article. We have few choices here.
6