re: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality

quote:

---

If you truly believe killing the government regulation known as net neutrality will cause ISPs to make exorbitant profits, then you're a complete idiot if you don't immediately buy as many shares of T, CMCSA, VZ or GOOGL as you can afford. Borrow money to buy those shares if you have to. Then just sit back and rake in the money.

---

Great stock tip, I just loaded up on T, currently sitting at 34.82, down from a high of 43 last January, time to load up!

quote:

---

Ajit explained it quite well. Seems to be a good choice for the FCC.

---

He didn't explain anything.

At all.

He used buzzwords and feelings.

For instance, there was zero explaination as to alternative unintended conseuqnces that was causing a net negative.

None.

For fricks sake people, it is literally just on the issue of throttling and it used Title 2 as a legal basis to enforce.


So the argument basically is "Don't worry, we aren't going to do it. We er.....just don't like it LAW that we can't. Just doesn't sit right with us. But we never will go against it. Nope. Don't worry about it."

Please.

For instance, his talk of going back to the regulatory framework prior to 2015....care to see the lawsuits and battles of the companies who insisted it didn't apply to them? But yes, it was some kind of ideal.

Then he talks about innovation during a time period that ISPs weren't stepping out of bounds, and includes companies that weren't bounds of this legislation and are some of the loudest proponents FOR it as examples why it isn't needed.

Did he even research what happened in the past decade?

BTW, I'm live typing this and I found this much bullshite in the first 3 minutes.


Speaking of....LMAO.

Explained it quite well, did he?

Did you fricking listen to what he was saying?


Go to 2:45.


"So if you pull back Title 2, what is something that an ISP can do easily that they can't do under title 2?"

*Ajit gives a condescending good old boy smile as if thats exactly his point.*

"Nothing"







By the way. Let me put to bed this narrative that this doesn't happen, is not an issue, and the FCC's COMPLETE and utter bullshite that its a phantom brought up by people trying to hijack the political narrative.


Knowing that the law is unlikely to be enforced under this new chairman, even though it is technically still in affect, Verizon openly admitted that they were caught, and including the language you can come to expect: "Oh you really didn't need that extra bandwidth anyway."




BTW, here is a brief sampling of events that led up to the title 2 designation.

The only phantom is Ajit's assertion of some nebulous forces pushing an agenda.

quote:

---

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

---

Their was a huge bot media push by reddit on NN. Then these dutiful fools go repeat exactly what they're told.

quote:

---

Link?

---

The avg HD stream uses 3-5GB of data an hour
The avg 4k uses 7-10GB of data an hour.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

As opposed to this board?

quote:

---

I'm talking about title 2 classification being necessary for the FCC to implement net neutrality under the law as it currently exists.

---

And I'm talking about what that classification is not necessary, as it was shown possible in 2014. You know, since that was my original response to you:

quote:

---

Because it allows the FCC to require all internet traffic to be treated equally.

They tried to do this without the title 2 classification. The courts struck it down.

Per the courts, net neutrality requires title 2 classification under current law.

---

quote:

---

The courts ruled that the FCC did not do an adequate job of proving a source of legal authority to police such rules, not that it had to be Title 2. Republicans actually introduced a method of doing so in 2014 that would have avoided Tittle II reclassification. Democrats didn't want that though, they want their public utility.

---

At no point is title 2 necessary for the FCC to have the authority to regulate. The courts did not rule that it was. They just ruled that the FCC needed congressional authority to regulate. That was just the path the Democrats chose to use because they want broadband as a public utility.

quote:

---

You keep deflecting from that reality by holding onto some proposed work around that isn't the actual law.

---

How is showing an alternative to a terrible regulation change a deflection?

You're operating under the "law of the land" delusion. The NN law is trying to be repealed. Guess what though, the same results can be achieved without Title 2 re-classification. That isn't a deflection, that is just a fact.

quote:

---

No actual understanding of policy, economics, or technological issues.

---

Why don’t you tell me I only have one option to buy power from the grid again? That sure showed your knowledge or policy, economics, and technology.

quote:

---

Stating something is a falsehood based on your simplistic view of what a monopoly is (per the thread last night), doesn’t make it correct

---

Forgive him, he linked me to the thread he started earlier where apparently he’s been live-blogging his progression through his freshman survey class of economics.

He hasn’t gotten to the chapters on natural monopolies, rent-seeking, implicit subsidization, regulatory capture, and market failures yet. They do typically cover a lot of that later in the semester, sometimes only glossing over it in survey classes, so it’s understandable.

quote:

---

Why don’t you tell me I only have one option to buy power from the grid again?

---

You have multiple lines running to your house?

You never did answer that.

I ask pointed questions, you ignore them, then go off on some pointless tangent because you know I have you backed in to a corner.

Rinse and repeat all night.

That's what happens when you don't actually understand the subject and parrot talking points from others who don't understand the subject.

quote:

---

BTW, for those who care to educate themselves at all, this is the event that started it all:

---

Did those events get resolved with market forces and existing regulatory control?

Yes or no.