- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
FCC chairman says net neutrality was a mistake
Posted on 2/28/17 at 11:33 am
Posted on 2/28/17 at 11:33 am
quote:
FCC chairman Ajit Pai said today that net neutrality was “a mistake” and that the commission is now “on track” to return to a much lighter style of regulation.
“Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market,” Pai said during a speech at Mobile World Congress this afternoon. “And uncertainty is the enemy of growth.”
Pai has long been opposed to net neutrality and voted against the proposal when it came up in 2015. While he hasn’t specifically stated that he plans to reverse the order now that he’s chairman, today’s speech suggests pretty clearly that he’s aiming to.
“WE ARE ON TRACK TO RETURNING TO THAT SUCCESSFUL APPROACH.”
“Today, the torch at the FCC has been passed to a new generation, dedicated to renewal as well as change,” Pai said. “We are confident in the decades-long, cross-party consensus on light-touch internet regulation ... and we are on track to returning to that successful approach.”
Pai’s argument is that internet providers were doing just fine under the old rules and that the new ones have hurt investment. Both of those points are highly debatable — there’s little competition in the wired broadband market, and Consumerist investigated the investment claims in early 2016 and found that internet providers were estimated to spend more in the coming year.
As additional evidence that “light touch” regulation is working, Pai points to the commission’s approval of zero-rating schemes — this, he says, is exactly why all four carriers are now offering unlimited data plans.
Except this argument makes even less sense, because zero rating isn’t involved in these plans at all (aside from, in some cases, video compression). These companies are competing to offer highly competitive unlimited data plans because the last FCC chairman kept them in a competitive environment, leaving four nationwide wireless providers and a clear set of rules for them to follow.
LINK
Need to start making advanced degrees in economics a minimum requirement for these positions
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 11:35 am
Posted on 2/28/17 at 11:36 am to jeff5891
quote:
Pai’s argument is that internet providers were doing just fine under the old rules
Well no shite, b/c:
quote:
there’s little competition in the wired broadband market,
And sure, in a perfect world where competition actually exists, you shouldn't need the regulation. Unfortunately, these companies have created monopolies through deals with local governments, corruption, and mergers to eliminate real competition in the majority of US markets. Hell, even places like Seattle have internet providers split up by area.
Furthermore, many of these ISPs were provided tax dollars and benefits to provide the infrastructure. Fortunately, I think public outrage will keep many egregious moves from happening, but pieces will fall pebble by pebble
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 11:42 am
Posted on 2/28/17 at 11:46 am to jeff5891
What this is going to allow the ISP's to do is create slow lanes and fast lanes to websites and streaming data.
So, besides the bandwidth you already pay for if you want to go to Netflix and Hulu you will have to buy the "media" plan which will be at an extra cost.
The current regulation would not allow this to happen.
So, besides the bandwidth you already pay for if you want to go to Netflix and Hulu you will have to buy the "media" plan which will be at an extra cost.
The current regulation would not allow this to happen.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 5:50 pm to wilceaux
these goddamned fricks. i can't even express how pissed i get when i think of the shite they will allow isp's to pull in the future.
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 2/28/17 at 7:02 pm to jeff5891
This guy is an asshat among asshats.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 7:45 pm to jeff5891
I have already resigned to the fact that once this administration is done, we will be way behind the rest of the world. Internet speed/cost, education, renewable energy, etc.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 9:12 pm to jeff5891
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 1:43 am
Posted on 2/28/17 at 10:53 pm to pioneerbasketball
Right now the courts ruled to basically classify the internet as a utility and not a luxury. That is probably going to change under this administration.
What if you're electric company wanted not only charge you a month for electricity, but also made wanted to charge additional fees to all the company's who's services run off electricity.
Internet service providers basically want to double dip. They want you to pay for Internet and they want services such as Netflix, YouTube and other companies that use a lot of Bandwidth to pay as well. Those companies would just pass the cost on to you driving up the prices and stifling competition.
What if you're electric company wanted not only charge you a month for electricity, but also made wanted to charge additional fees to all the company's who's services run off electricity.
Internet service providers basically want to double dip. They want you to pay for Internet and they want services such as Netflix, YouTube and other companies that use a lot of Bandwidth to pay as well. Those companies would just pass the cost on to you driving up the prices and stifling competition.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 10:59 pm to pioneerbasketball
quote:
Can someone explain this to me since I use dial up. Surely, it won't get slower.

It's a really complex topic, but I will try to boil it down the way I see it.
Republicans really, really, really believe in free markets. And that's fine, I do too. But, to me, it's pretty obvious that some markets/industries simply cannot go unchecked without regulation if we care about their impact on society and the economy as a whole. I believe the ISP industry is one such market.
ISPs have already proven that they will do the things that net neutrality advocates worry about. There are many examples of ISPs doing things that give their own products an unfair advantage (several ISPs have been caught throttling Netflix, AT&T blocked Facetime, etc.). And these days, with so many players getting into the streaming video game, what's to stop ISPs from throttling all others in favor of their own services? It's funny how they all exempt their own streaming video services from their own arbitrary data caps, huh? Normally, when companies do shitty things like this, no government involvement is necessary because there are usually other options, but...
Most people have very limited options when it comes to their ISP (as you probably know, Mr. Dialup

So we are left with a bad situation: in the case of ISPs, free market capitalism is (in my opinion) bad for consumers, which is generally bad for innovation and the economy. Regulations that enforce net neutrality solve some of the problems (unfair "competition"), but they can't really address the other problems that result from a lack of competition (slow innovation, prices).
Hopefully, in the next 10 years or so we will start to see technology that will solve all of the problems. Specifically, satellite internet that uses Low or Medium Earth Orbit (LEO or MEO) satellites instead of the geostationary orbits that "traditional" satellite internet services use. Most current satellite ISPs just have a problem with physics itself. In order for the satellite to stay at a particular point in the sky, they have to be so far away that internet service just can't really be good. Lower orbits means the satellites will keep moving in the sky, so you have to launch a lot of them so one or more are always visible in the sky. Companies like SpaceX are making it cheaper to launch rockets, so I'm hopeful that we will see a lot of competition soon. It would be awesome if the whole world was blanketed with a satellite signal that could be used for home or mobile internet.
Until then, I think we need some net neutrality regulations to prevent a handful of companies from controlling how and what we do on the internet simply because they are the only option for a lot of people.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 3:08 am to jeff5891
The Trump administration doing work.
Thanks Trump
Thanks Trump
Posted on 3/1/17 at 7:41 am to jeff5891
Former lawyer for Verizon doesn't support net neutrality? I'm truly shocked.
What an a-hole.
What an a-hole.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 10:12 am to jeff5891
I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but can understand not imposing net neutrality against wireless ISPs as there is great competition amongst carriers (probably because of telco regulations tbh). With broadband it is a completely different story.
Popular
Back to top
