The Republican Push To Repeal Net Neutrality Will Get Underway This Week (washingtonpost.com) 141
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post: Federal regulators will move to roll back one of the Obama administration's signature Internet policies this week, launching a process to repeal the government's net neutrality rules that currently regulate how Internet providers may treat websites and their own customers. The vote on Thursday, led by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, will kick off consideration of a proposal to relax regulations on companies such as Comcast and AT&T. If approved by the 2-1 Republican-majority commission, it will be a significant step for the broadband industry as it seeks more leeway under government rules to develop new business models. For consumer advocates and tech companies, it will be a setback; those groups argue that looser regulations won't prevent those business models from harming Internet users and website owners. The current rules force Internet providers to behave much like their cousins in the legacy telephone business. Under the FCC's net neutrality policy, providers cannot block or slow down consumers' Internet traffic, or charge websites a fee in order to be displayed on consumers' screens. The net neutrality rules also empower the FCC to investigate ISP practices that risk harming competition. Internet providers have chafed at the stricter rules governing phone service, which they say were written for a bygone era. Pai's effort to roll back the rules has led to a highly politicized debate. Underlying it is a complex policy decision with major implications for the future of the Web.
You idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
You fools elected a nightmare scenario government. Decades of progress in human rights, science, and technology getting wiped out. Congratulations.
Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC (who created the phone company monstrosities) took over and neutrality regulations were released in 2015. They have never been enforced yet. So those decades of innovation building the world wide web - that was all without net neutrality micromanaging networks, with just FTC regulations.
Re:Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score:4, Interesting)
No need to predict the past. I was there, in IETF (Score:3)
> that the outcomes from an academic exercise will be remotely similar
Regulation by the FTC, without net neutrality regulations, isn't an academic exercise. It's what we had until late 2015. It's what built the goddamn internet. I don't have to predict how that make work, that's the past. And I wad there, a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force drafting protocol standards such as HTTP (aka the web). I'd say our little web project went pretty damn well without Washington telling us how to rou
Re: (Score:3)
That's right. Let's ignore all the attempts by ISPs to throttle competing traffic. Because those facts are inconvenient to our story that the Internet will remain as it always was.
Re: (Score:1)
Which attempts are you referring to?
I was using an independent VOIP service on a basic slow and cheap broadband service from my ISP. The ISP began to offer their own VOIP service. The ISP forced me to upgrade to a faster more expensive broadband service for a trial. After the trial ended, I requested to return to my original plan. Once back on basic broadband, my VOIP no longer worked. I could hear voices all backwards, like the packets were being mixed and sent in improper order. When I spoke to the ISP, they told me that I would either need
Re: (Score:3)
And if the ISPs had the ability to do things like deep packet inspection back in 1998, do you think we'd have the relatively free internet we do now?
The FCC didn't decide to impose regulations randomly because they were bored one day. They saw that things were looking to turn bad and they tried to head it off at the pass.
The big ISPs are not going to give you an open internet of their own free will -- there is zero incentive to do so and a huge profit incentive to lock it down as much as possible. There i
Content + access: AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy (Score:2)
People are concerned that a few major ISPs will provide just their content or make deals with a few content companies to provide the content. That is as opposed every ISP providing access to all web sites and internet services. That *could* happen. That *did* happen. The ISPs were called AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. When others offered free and open access to everything on the internet, that beat the pants off the "ISP as content provider" model. People did in fact abandon Prodigy and instead signed up
Re: (Score:2)
But now those always on broadband services are the kings and are moving towards the walled gardens of the dial up era, because control ensures increased profits.
Re:Content + access: AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy (Score:5, Interesting)
Your example also happened at a time when the internet relied entirely on sitting on top of a wire infrastructure that already existed and was maintained by companies not involved in the supply of internet services. Those ISPs were sitting on the phone lines - and changing ISPs was as easy as terminating your account and getting another one. It was fairly easy to switch ISPs and fairly cheap and easy to establish one - because the infrastructure costs were limited to a few routers and servers.
That era doesn't exist anymore - broadband technology came with the downside of requiring expensive new infrastructure and the ISPs converged into being the same companies that build the infrastructure.
The old ISP competitive market was lost in the process.
Your prediction then that the same would happen is not supported by the evidence you're providing since the two situations are markedly different. It's a basic principle of the scientific method that if you change the parameters of the experiment you cannot assume the results will not also change.
Re: (Score:2)
Now what would it have looked like if AOL, or CompuServe owned the wires connecting to your house?
Now our new CompuServe (comcast) owns the wires. They can shut you off any time they want. It is only the kindness of their heart that they allow you to access Youtube or daily motion or Wikipedia on the wires they own. We really should be thanking them for using the network they allow us to use.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to think that broadband is a competitive market. Any company can receive telephone calls, but only a few companies can delivery broadband to your door.
Without free competition, the industry needs regulation.
Re:Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score:5, Insightful)
The past was not as rosy as you believe, and innovation stifling monopolies in telecom are nothing new. I remember trying to negotiate a peering agreement with MCI/Worldcom/UUNet back in the 1990s: "We own 60% of the Internet, and as long as you also own 60% of the Internet, then peering is no problem. Otherwise, pay up."
Re: (Score:1)
Sound like you couldn't get a settlement free peering arrangement. What was their reason(s)?
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to know what the Internet would look like, look at how information services were run by cell phone companies before Apple came along with the iPhone and broke the system.
The focus wasn't on investing tons of money to develop innovative new capabilities, the focus was on ways of monetizing what their networks already could do, the way they still do with text messaging. For example I had a phone with a camera, but to get the picture off the camera I had to subscribe to a proprietary "Picture Mail
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score:2, Insightful)
What you meant to say was "once Netflix gave them more money, their problems went away"
There should be no double dipping. You shouldn't have to pay more to have your traffic flow thru the pipes you are already paying for. NN or not, what Comcast did was wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, for Netflix to give Comcast or other providers MORE money implies that Netflix was their customer. If that were the case, then the entire issue would be a contractual one and not net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not double dipping unless you think that companies should be able to connect to the internet for free.
They paid their own ISP. That was never the problem, and no one is debating that.
The double dipping is requiring Netflix to pay the end ISP as well for their packets to get routed to end users in a timely manner.
It's pertinent to Net Neutrality because the ISPs had a financial incentive in doing this to promote their own (non-throttled) offerings that directly competed against Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
They have never been enforced yet.
Interestingly murder is illegal and yet no one has enforced the law on me yet either.
Maybe it is because I don't murder idiots who can't think clearly precisely because there's laws in place that would punish me.
The success of a regulation is not measured by how often it needs to be enforced. Actually I could be measured that way, but in an inverse way to what you are describing.
What, exactly, was so great about 2016? (Score:2)
Okay so apparently your theory is that although the FCC regulations hadn't gone into effect, they still had some great benefit on the internet. 2016, which had NN regulations written, was somehow much better than 1992-2014, with no such regulations, right?
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had? Added expenses certainly slowed price reductions, what eas this great benefit that was worth it?
Re: (Score:2)
FCC regulations hadn't gone into effect
He shoots, he misses, because the goal posts are now 10m to the left. I quoted the relevant bit above which is not at all what you said earlier. Which was that the regulations were released but hadn't been enforced. If you don't understand the simple presence of regulations can have an effect then really there's nothing I (or anyone else) can really do to help you anymore.
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had?
We didn't need laws against murder before the first murder either. May I remind you what actually happened in the past 2 years that cause
If network engineers think it's dumb, must be good (Score:2)
> You just can look at all the worried lobbying telcos
So you're thinking is that if the people who actually run the networks, the people who know what they are talking about, think it's a horribly stupid idea, that proves that it's a great idea?
One early draft of the rules made it illegal to block spam - all smtp traffic had to be treated equally. Ensuing drafts were dumb in a similar, but more complex way. All traffic is NOT the same. Sometimes you WANT your packets delayed, because early packets are
Re: (Score:2)
What *exactly* was so great, what did the new regulations accomplish that was better than what we've always had?
The difference is that the ISPs are now also setting themselves up to be primary content providers, thus giving a financial incentive to degrade Internet services which they didn't have before. It also didn't used to matter in the old days before we could stream TV and movies in any real quality. The purposes for which end subscribers use the Internet have changed in the last several years, and the business goals and products of the Internet Service Providers have also changed in the same time period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who is getting who, the election was between the lessor evil and the lessor evil where a vote for the greater evil could have only gone to Cthulhu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], good thing it was running else it would have won, although how much of greater evil Cthulhu would be compared to the ones that ran for the election would be questionable. It's not like any laws that are put in cannot not be taken out and they will be. Lets be serious, nightmare government, that was that backstabbing bullshit Unc
Re: (Score:2)
You fools elected a nightmare scenario government. Decades of progress in human rights, science, and technology getting wiped out. Congratulations.
At some point, fibre will allow a competitive and the wish will be for a competitor that will be net neutral.
Without exception other countries have insisted on Net-Neutrality. This is a anti-net neutrality is a oligopoly by Verizon and the other Behemoths exercising control over the government.
So much for progress... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing that the Republicans are focusing rolling back old policy rather than making new policy with all the issues going on in the government right now!
Re: (Score:2)
The Communist states just have a "C". Do you think that was superior? The most fundamental aspect of democracy is choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse communism with dictatorship - while most communist states have been dictatorships this is not limited to communism - and dictatorship is evil all by itself.
Hitler and Musolini was vehemently anti-communist (Fascism hates Communism)
Franco of Spain started out as a Fascist, became a Communist after world war 2 (when fascism lost a lot of it's appeal), and became a capitalist in the 1970s
Pinochet was perhaps the most capitalist leader in world history - and one of the most brutal dictators of the
Re: (Score:2)
Communism can only exist in a Dictatorship/Oligarchy as that's the only way people will allow the govt to take all their stuff. If you vote them in you can't vote them out.
You'll notice that if the state runs everything, the power monger gets to tell you what to do all the time. That's the opposite of a democracy.
The difference between Fascism and Communism is only where the Politburo sits and what they name themselves.
Politics is not left/right, it's the crazy wheel, when you go too far in either d
Re: (Score:3)
So you're just going to pretend that anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism and council communism (actually I'll stop here but there are about 200 more in the list) don't exist ?
More importantly - you missed the point. It's the dictatorship that's the problem - it doesn't MATTER what economic system it comes with. All dictatorships are equally evil.
And to suggest that fascism and communism have anything whatsoever in common is merely to prove that, sadly like the vast majority o
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Trump drained the swamp alright. Then he gave all the snakes and alligators cabinet posts.
Re: (Score:1)
Still draining. That's all the crap we hear on the TV and newspapers, the fake "news". They don't like it being drained. Such as the Russian story with intelligence, which is his to declassify so he can't leak it by definition.
I worked in DC. It's a lot deeper than when I worked there. He'll probably never totally drain it, however I think a good 10 feet will help. That'll mean most if not all of the Democrats and probably 50% of the Republicans at least will be in jail. Probably to pessimistic. A lot of th
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... you apparently missed the joke. Trump has not reduced corruption in washington - by being the most corrupt president in ...ever he has HUGELY increased it, and he filled his cabinet with the biggest bunch of corrupt elites in decades. The only Goldman/Sachs employees he HASN'T put in his cabinet are Goldman and Sachs ! Weren't you Trumpets all angry that Hillary got paid to talk to Goldman/Sachs ? Where is that anger now that Trump has actually MADE Goldman Sachs INTO the executive branch of the gov
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't get the joke because it's not founded in truth. He is reducing corruption. Don't believe everything, half, no even a portion of what's out there. What happens when you cut the air off to someone? They will struggle for their life. That's what we're seeing. They will lie, cheat, kill, do anything. All they can come up with? Oh, Russia. So what, nothing illegal happened.
Stay tuned, it'll get more interesting.
Hillary? Why is that woman being paid like that? Why can't I stand in her stead and make that
Re: (Score:1)
Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, it is often easier to undo existing legislation than it is to create a new piece of legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember circa 2013 the republican congress was called the "least productive" congress in history. Ted Cruz declared that this was a good thing and said: "A congress should be judged more by how many laws it repeals than by how many laws it passes".
Of course, it turns out that congress was STILL the least productive by this measure as well. In fact, the only thing that congress ever actually 'achieved' was to shut down the government (and they ultimately had to relent and sign a budget without getting the
Re:So much for progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is going to be doing anything for months but watching the unfolding horror story in the White House. Now we've reached the "Special Counsel" stage with Robert Mueller taking over the DoJ investigation into Trump-Russia links. It's like Watergate-on-steroids, or more like Watergate-on-methamphetamine. If the record of impeachment is any indicator, Washington will literally grind to a halt for many months.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Trump himself still thinks he's doing a re-enactment of the Andrew Jackson presidency, trail of tears and all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like Watergate-on-steroids, or more like Watergate-on-methamphetamine. If the record of impeachment is any indicator, Washington will literally grind to a halt for many months.
WOOOHOOO! Yipppeeee! Yahoooooooo! Yeeee......erm....*cough* I mean that's too bad.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those are the old definitions of progressive and conservative. The modern American definitions are just: conservatives believe whateve
Re: (Score:1)
Conservatism is about restraint, not opposition to progress. Progressivism is not about progress, but "I want it all and I want it now, and damn you if you can't handle change" (not to be confused with liberalism, which is about progress).
What we want is homeostasis -- attenuated healthy rate of progress. Social disruption is a sign of an unhealthy rate of growth. Liberals and conservatives working together in a balanced system is what works. Liberals can try to reach too far, and conservatives can pull the
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal policies appeal to the poor and downtrodden, a sector of the population that's only increasing in size and voting power. Therefore, your conservative policies are under continuous threat of being overtaken by "disruptive" progressivism.
This explains the gerrymandering to contain and control liberal, often metropolitan, areas of the US. If you could win by playing fair, you'd do it - but you can't, so you have to rely on a big punitive government to prevent the growth of a big egalitarian one.
Re: (Score:2)
Its in line with Trump's campaign platform. He really only promoted two policies of his own: Building a wall and "winning."
Everything else he promised pretty much was rolling back one piece of Obama's work or another.
Oh well, and lowering taxes. But that's been a "promise" of every Republican candidate for decades. At this point its more of a "good morning" for them than an actual promise they plan on fulfilling beyond a small token tax break for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing that the Republicans are focusing rolling back old policy rather than making new policy with all the issues going on in the government right now!
Please identify one act of government that was For the people, by the people. The roll back of the ACA without a replacement was Anti-people and for BIG BUSINESS.
The anti-net neutrality is for BIG INTERNET PROVIDERS, and not for the people.
Already you are having to pay extra for internet speeds that are standard in all other major countries. Ten years ago, in Latvia, where my son lived, we had fibre to the apartment and could download a movie in a few minutes.
Obama policy? I think not (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no debate here. This is an ISP cronie trying to repeal a policy shoved down government throats by the collective voices of most of the people in the country. R's whore for big business and D's sell out to tech and media companies. At best net neutrality is a wash for D's with as many policy buyers in the tech and media area willing to bribe them to do it as not.
That is what you call actual Democracy. When public support is so overwhelming that it forces the hands of politicians on the things which benefit us, which almost universally neither party supports. Net neutrality, castrating domestic wiretapping, protecting whistle blowers like Snowden, spreading military power among the states, actually enforcing parts of the constitution the limit federal power, redistricting in a way that reflects the 51-49% split between urban and rural population WITHOUT trying to lump any particular special interest or minority group together, making it illegal to accept jobs or money after leaving a public office for any entity that was under the authority of that office, including indirectly (i.e. the president can have no income source but his salary for life after office and the FCC chairman can't be paid by ISP's afterward).
Re: (Score:2)
R's whore for big business and D's sell out to tech and media companies. At best net neutrality is a wash for D's with as many policy buyers in the tech and media area willing to bribe them to do it as not.
I'm not saying that it's absolute but in regards to network neutrality, it's been a very partisan issue. [wikipedia.org]
Support for "the Obama administration's signature Internet polic[y]" [wikipedia.org] was split down partisan lines and has remained as such.
The current proposal for Open Internet was opposed by the FCC's two Republican officials, Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker. They believe that the current order will stifle internet innovation. They also believe that the regulation will not hold up to judicial review.[8] McDowell himself believes that the FCC "is defying the court and also circumventing the will of Congress."[8]
Democrats and left-leaning organizations are disappointed with the rule as well because they claim that it does not go far enough.[13] Prior to the passage of the regulations, The Progressive Change Campaign Committee attacked Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, saying "Internet users across America will have lost a hero if Commissioner Copps caves to pressure from big business and supports FCC Chairman Genachowski's fake Net Neutrality rules — rules written by AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, the very companies the public is depending on the FCC to regulate strongly."[14]
The net neutrality rule did not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. The measure was denounced by net neutrality advocates as a capitulation to telecommunication companies such as allowing them to discriminate on transmission speed for their profit, especially on mobile devices like the iPad, while pro-business advocates complained about any regulation of the Internet at all. Republicans in Congress announced to reverse the rule through legislation.[52][53] Advocates of net neutrality criticized the changes.[54]
It's nice to remember only the good parts of history but it's critical that we remember all parts of history lest we be doomed to repeat it.
Re: (Score:1)
bullshit. Democrats like Obama fought to preserve and enforce through law Net Neutrality, and now the GOP administration is in a hurry to repeal it. if you are too cowardly to own up to your own party's policy's then maybe you shouldn't vote for them.
Re: (Score:2)
'New business model', indeed: (Score:4, Insightful)
* Man-in-the-middle attacks to spy on all their web traffic, collect the data, sell it to advertisers so they can spam the fuck out of everyone
* Break into customer emails for the same reasons as the above
* Effectively break the Internet by crippling competing services
* Push consumers into walled gardens 'for their own good' (and for greater profit)
* Become both content creators and content providers, effectively creating a monopoly, raise prices even more
Given their druthers:
* Make all OTA broadcasts illegal, all content reception must be PAID for
Of course Trump will probably be arrested before the year is out, and in the next general election, Republicans will be run out of town on a rail, too, for fucking everything up, so it might take a while but everything might just get set right again before they manage to blow it all up.
Re: (Score:2)
nest to be repealed: road neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Where road ownership will be privatized and each owner will get to set its own rules regarding who gets to drive on the roads, what brand of cars are allowed on the road, which destination you are allowed to go to when using said road, and where both the person driving the car and the owner of the destination where he is driving to will have to pay for the privilege of using the road.
Re: (Score:1)
Wish I had mod points...
Re: (Score:2)
This is already happening, though for different reasons. Infrastructure is of course a major concern that government doesn't really have the funds to deal with, so there's a fairly large push for private companies to build toll roads in their stead.
While I doubt we'll see them turn you away for driving a Toyota instead of a Mazda, they are already in essence turning away the poorer people who can barely afford gas for their car and can't handle the additional cost of tolls, and I wouldn't be surprised to s
Re: (Score:2)
Where road ownership will be privatized and each owner will get to set its own rules regarding who gets to drive on the roads, what brand of cars are allowed on the road, which destination you are allowed to go to when using said road, and where both the person driving the car and the owner of the destination where he is driving to will have to pay for the privilege of using the road.
How true, so then you pay two tolls and can drive at 120 mph, while the guy who pays one toll is only allowed to drive at 90 mph. But that is besides the connection fee, the toll to get onto the highway.
If your highway is rated at 90mph, then if you get onto that highway, you want to be able to do 90mph. You do not want to discover that you are second class, unless you fork up an additional amount of money. Bring back the good old days where you had a 20gig/month allotment and then you paid a penalty fe
We can get it back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
otherside... you mean the people that take money from the same corps and lobbyists?
personally i am giving up hope and just ignoring the world as it burns around us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama got more telecom money than Romney did, and he still put an FCC chairman in place in favor of net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
the chairman was not in favor, but his boss made him listen to the public... so i guess some difference is there.
Re: (Score:2)
retard
Wow, that's even classier and better reasoned!
There are no winners here.
How is this a partisan thing? (Score:2)
I'm a huge newbie when it comes to American politics, but how is this even a partisan issue? Which party is standing on the platform of "Less internet and higher bills for every man, woman, child, and business"? Do Republican constituents strongly believe that there is too much opportunity on the internet and fairly competing for market share is ruining the country?
The whole Trump thing I get, I think. I can appreciate the situation even if I don't appreciate the man. But this I just can't understand, is t
Re:How is this a partisan thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Because here in the US, and most common among right leaning folks, we have a very unique mental ... 'condition' about the government doing anything other than shows of military force.
These rubes are told: "government is interfering with business", and the knee-jerk reaction is "regulation bad, free enterprise good". And that's how republican voters are conned into voting/supporting things that are absolutely counter their interests.
Basically, you have the FCC/government interfering with free enterprise, which goes against our notion of rustic self reliance. Notice, this only gets trotted out when the government is trying to regulate business, especially if it's in the public interest. Handouts are of course distinct, and definitely a different beast!
Re: (Score:2)
WORKING CONTROL (Score:2)
Absolute control is too easily hated, opposed, and extremely visible.
Working control lets lesser issues distract the peasants - like having gladiators fight for entertainment and giving the crowd input on who to kill -- by showing it's the authoritarians decision but Caesar sides with the people (symbolically.)
As the wealthy screw over more and more people (class wars have NEVER stopped) they need bigger drama and bigger distractions. You can't have people SEE that on the important matters, it's a good cop
Permanent or what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there actually is a clause in the repeal legislation they're trying to push that specifically denies future reversals. And you thought "no take backs" died in primary school!
Of course, there's still the possibility of reimplementing some form of net neutrality in a different manner, but that will be significantly more work than simply reclassifying ISPs from Title I to Title II, which is all the FCC did the first time.
Meh (Score:1)
The only way to get the general public's attention (Score:2)
I have said this on other forums, but the only way to get John Q. Public's attention is for many high profile websites (I'm looking at you, Google along with others) to go dark. I'm not talking a black banner or some such at the top - I'm talking TOTAL blackout - with nothing more than white text explaining why. Trying to bypass the home page (Thinking it's just window dressing) redirects you back to the blackout page. NOTHING works. Pull the proverbial plug.
That's how you get action.
Re: (Score:1)
So they should shut themselves down to bully people into supporting something that did nothing and was pushed by people who didn't even understand what they were pushing.
So many people pushing Net Neutrality talk about these scary scenarios that never happened before NN, and then talk about Netflix and Comcast while failing to realize that Net Neutrality wouldn't have mattered since the issue was network traffic management of an abusive peer, something specifically allowed under Net Neutrality rules.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do you call this a Republican plan? Trump is not paying one iota of attention to what is going on in the FCC. I doubt if he can even name the FCC commissioners. Pai took over automatically when the White House switched parties, Trump did not put him there. Also, when you poll voters on this 70% of people are for Net Neutrality and 30% don't know what it is. Republicans and Democrats poll almost identically on this. This is not a party line issue.
Pai is a member of party Verizon with constituents Comcast, Charter, AT&T, etc. Pai is not representing any block of voters.
What we should be hoping for is that he attracts the attention of Trump by throttling his Twitter, and then I'm sure Pai will get a "You're Fired!". And, by the way, he was appointed by Obama and approved by a Democratically controlled Senate.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Technically true, Obama appointed him to the committee, but he was just one of five members, not the chairman of the FCC. Only three members of the committee can be members of the party currently in power, the other two must come from the other side. So Obama had to pick a republican.
Tom Wheeler was chairman of the FCC during Obama's second term. Pai did not take over automatically, the chairman is appointed by the president. Because this issue is essentially one group of powerful corporations fighting a second group of powerful corporations, it tends not to be a partisan issue so much as a "who gave which politician the most money recently" issue.
Re: Good (Score:1)
Pai was appointed FCC chair by Trump, which is what makes this a Republican (pro big corporation) initiative. Pai has been a vocal proponent of killing net neutrality, and he was appointed Chair by the president.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you call this a Republican plan? Trump is not paying one iota of attention to what is going on in the FCC.
Cause he already has commented on it? https://m.facebook.com/DonaldT... [facebook.com]
He obviously was very confused by the term net neutrality or since Obama was pushing title 2 he had to be against this funky title 2 crap!
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sticking with him not having a clue as to what is happening in the FTC. Seems like Trump is in that 30% that doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.
Trump is never going to stop Pai on technical grounds, Trump is going to fire Pai after he anger millions of voters. That's something that Trump will pay attention to.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sticking with him not having a clue as to what is happening in the FTC. Seems like Trump is in that 30% that doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.
Trump is never going to stop Pai on technical grounds, Trump is going to fire Pai after he anger millions of voters. That's something that Trump will pay attention to.
Doesn't matter if it is a technical understanding or not. Trump has been told and has parroted the anti-net neutrality talking points and has made it apart of his campaign and his administration staff have stated they will start reversing Obama era title 2 see here [nytimes.com] for references to the Spicer press release statements. The administrations/Trump's tact is that it was an overreach. No matter how you cut it, Trump is involved and has talked about it multiple times.
So yes, this is a Trump goal and a Republica
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you call this a Republican plan?
Because "no net neutrality" fits very well with the Republican plan to eliminate or greatly reduce government regulation on businesses. Net Neutrality is one of the very few regulations that I've seen which has a cute name that people like and has a lot of people interested in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was.
The whole net neutrality debate began with ISPs trying to charge netflix a surcharge not to throttle them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider blasphemy laws and media silence on religiously-motivated crime "democracy" then yes.... they have a better democracy. I'd rather keep the 1st amendment intact.... the one that lets me speak no matter who I offend or how much of an asshole the majority thinks that I am.
I'll take a constitutional republic over a democracy any day of the week. Too bad the republicans have become the Christian Nationalist party instead of real republicans.
Re: Good (Score:3)
You people keep using the term "Marxism" without even the slightest inkling of what it means. Hint: it's not liberalism and the closest we have to a Marxist is Bernie who's more a social democrat than a Marxist
Re: (Score:2)
Spin, crazy wheel, spin spin spin. Far Left and Right put you in the same place.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats it! Alexa!: Destruct sequence 1, code 1, 1-A!
Sorry, but you'll need Scotty and Acting Science Officer Chekov to give their codes as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Net neutrality prevents ISPs from ratcheting up the cost on companies that have an online fee for service business model (ex Netflix)"
Wrong. Net neutrality would not stop an ISP from raising the rates of its customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Yawn.
The internet didn't spring into existence 18 months ago.