Republican fcc member warns net neutrality is not neutral

[Revmitchell]

Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...c-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

 

[blessedwife318]

Of course its not neutral, nor is it about keeping free speech on the internet. It is about control. Democrats can't stand anyone having a voice besides them so they have to find a way to control the internet.

 

[poncho]

Yep, evidently the republican's "total information awareness" system isn't having the desired chilling effect.

I love Baptist Board. This is one of the few places left I can find where both parties can be party to the same thing but only one party gets the blame.

 

[Don]

Net neutrality is NOT about free speech, and never has been. It's about your access to information.

I'm curious: As it currently stands, how many different cable companies in your area offer internet service?

 

[poncho]

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

 

[go2church]

Throttling, pay to play and the like hurt the consumer. Companies providing Internet access have shown they can't be trusted to provide open for all access, now the government must step in to ensure profits don't trump people.

 

[Revmitchell]

We need to wean ourselves off of the government. It is a crutch that steals our freedom.

 

[Don]

We need to wean ourselves off of the government. It is a crutch that steals our freedom.

Normally, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. In this case, I hope to provide an alternate point of view.

The most important function of government is supposed to be securing the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. We have a big problem with that these days, especially with the current administration.

However, we each have a right to access information. Corporations are not fulfilling that right. When they limit our access to information, in order to charge us more money to gain access to that information, that places limitations on our freedom.

Further, there is no responsibility of corporations to fulfill that right of individual citizens. Corporations are not governments; they work towards the benefit of the corporation. Hopefully they exercise some social good in the process.

Look at the area you live in. How many different cable internet companies are available to choose from? Do you have at least a half dozen choices? If not, why not? Where's the competition that's supposed to keep the corporations in check?

Sure, you could opt for wireless (satellite) instead. But then you really find the pain of the non-neutral internet. You're automatically limited in your access speed, and how much information you can access. Typically, satellite internet sets their thresholds at 10Gb per month; that's equivalent to approximately two movies. Once you reach that limit, you're automatically throttled. You receive reduced speeds; and you can forget about accessing any more movies. Want to partake of Amazon Prime, Hulu, or Netflix? Or even YouTube? Forget about it; unless you don't mind the constant "buffering" message.

Our cell phone carriers are already conditioning us to throttled speeds. My wife has maintained an old agreement with AT&T for unlimited data. They constantly encourage us to "upgrade" to the shared data plans--which would reduce her from unlimited data to her share of 10Gb per month. And she constantly receives notifications that she's abusing her data limits. How is it possible that you're abusing your data limit with an unlimited data plan?

South Korean internet consumers enjoy 1Gps (gigabit per second) internet speeds. On average, Americans get 8Mbs (megabits per second). Finland has better access speeds than we do. In a comparison from 2013, the US ranked 8 for internet access speeds. There were 7 countries who have faster internet speeds than the greatest capitalist society on the face of the planet. How can that be?

My biggest problem with the FCC's statements so far is that they're not talking about rate regulation; which means, the corporations are still able to charge what they want. And they now have a clear avenue to say that they have to charge us more to comply with the government's directions.

Yes, we will have to watch our government to ensure they don't abuse these controls. But just as the government's function is to ensure the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens, the essential responsibility of the citizens is to limit their government.

 

[InTheLight]

Throttling, pay to play and the like hurt the consumer. Companies providing Internet access have shown they can't be trusted to provide open for all access, now the government must step in to ensure profits don't trump people.

"...and the like"--what does that include?

There ought to be a law against throttling, yes. But to turn the entire internet access business over to the government is a mistake. You will see regulations, perhaps a universal connection speed so no one has a speed advantage, and new taxes perhaps to pay for guaranteed access to people in extremely remote rural areas. Also have to pay for the new wing of FCC bureaucracy that will be created to regulate the internet. I suppose the government will also decide what kind of new innovations the consumer should be getting rather than let the market decide.

I see nothing wrong with the consumer having a choice to pay more for higher connection speeds.

 

[Revmitchell]

However, we each have a right to access information. Corporations are not fulfilling that right. When they limit our access to information, in order to charge us more money to gain access to that information, that places limitations on our freedom.

whoa wait who is doing that?

 

[InTheLight]

The most important function of government is supposed to be securing the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. We have a big problem with that these days, especially with the current administration.

However, we each have a right to access information.

Where, oh where, is this right codified by the constitution or other laws?

Corporations are not fulfilling that right. When they limit our access to information, in order to charge us more money to gain access to that information, that places limitations on our freedom.

Yes, your freedom to be a consumer, which is not a right.

Further, there is no responsibility of corporations to fulfill that right of individual citizens.

You speak as if this "right" to information was actually a right and not a paid for product. Do people have a "right" to have a telephone? A TV?

Look at the area you live in. How many different cable internet companies are available to choose from? Do you have at least a half dozen choices? If not, why not? Where's the competition that's supposed to keep the corporations in check?

There are not choices because most municipalities are following the 100 years old model of telephone line access and applying it to cable. Rather than have multiple competing companies string several sets of cables throughout the city they awarded a contract to one provider.

South Korean internet consumers enjoy 1Gps (gigabit per second) internet speeds.

Correction: In Korea it is possible for consumers to pay more to get this sort of connection speed. The average speed in S. Korea is 21 Mps. (The US is 10 Mps).

http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/

On average, Americans get 8Mbs (megabits per second). Finland has better access speeds than we do. In a comparison from 2013, the US ranked 8 for internet access speeds. There were 7 countries who have faster internet speeds than the greatest capitalist society on the face of the planet. How can that be?

People don't want to pay extra to get 50 Mps connection speeds. They are available.

My biggest problem with the FCC's statements so far is that they're not talking about rate regulation; which means, the corporations are still able to charge what they want.

Yes, that is called capitalism.

And they now have a clear avenue to say that they have to charge us more to comply with the government's directions.

And if the government classifies the internet as a utility and has the power to regulate it, they have the power to tax it. And they will. The likely outcome will be a universal standard minimum connection speed, say 15-20 Mps, thereby dumbing everyone down to one level, and increase expense through taxation.

What about fiber optic systems and infrastructure and their promise of super high speeds and quality connections? What motivation will the internet companies have to provide this new technology if their rates are regulated?

 

[go2church]

"...and the like"--what does that include?

There ought to be a law against throttling, yes. But to turn the entire internet access business over to the government is a mistake. You will see regulations, perhaps a universal connection speed so no one has a speed advantage, and new taxes perhaps to pay for guaranteed access to people in extremely remote rural areas. Also have to pay for the new wing of FCC bureaucracy that will be created to regulate the internet. I suppose the government will also decide what kind of new innovations the consumer should be getting rather than let the market decide.

I see nothing wrong with the consumer having a choice to pay more for higher connection speeds.

A simple choice to pay for more is fine, but it is so much more than that. The providers, huge corporations are the ones deciding who is important enough to be able to receive these hight speeds. If they, say Comcast (NBC) don't like your business, say Netflix, they throttle the speeds and demand more money. Netflix is big enough to pay, so they do, only to pass along the cost to the consumer. That isn't a level playing field from which a consumer can freely choose one of several options. As long as the providers decide who is and who isn't important enough to even have an option for high speed there is not a level playing field.

 

[Revmitchell]

A simple choice to pay for more is fine, but it is so much more than that. The providers, huge corporations are the ones deciding who is important enough to be able to receive these hight speeds. If they, say Comcast (NBC) don't like your business, say Netflix, they throttle the speeds and demand more money. Netflix is big enough to pay, so they do, only to pass along the cost to the consumer. That isn't a level playing field from which a consumer can freely choose one of several options. As long as the providers decide who is and who isn't important enough to even have an option for high speed there is not a level playing field.

If the service of Netflix is dependent on another business then this is fair and appropriate. What is inappropriate is to characterize this issue as a who when it should be a what.

 

[InTheLight]

A simple choice to pay for more is fine, but it is so much more than that. The providers, huge corporations are the ones deciding who is important enough to be able to receive these hight speeds. If they, say Comcast (NBC) don't like your business, say Netflix, they throttle the speeds and demand more money. Netflix is big enough to pay, so they do, only to pass along the cost to the consumer. That isn't a level playing field from which a consumer can freely choose one of several options. As long as the providers decide who is and who isn't important enough to even have an option for high speed there is not a level playing field.

I guess I'm missing the part where capitalism is supposed to be inherently fair. I can totally grasp the concept whereby if I want to watch a 2 hour movie in 1080p HD over the internet that should cost me more than surfing the internet, visiting websites, maybe do some shopping and watch a couple of YouTube videos.

I can understand why Comcast would not want Netflix to have unlimited bandwidth to hog the data stream, bogging down speeds for everyone and deny regular internet users a decent connection speed. Should Netflix be able to use, say, 20% of Comcast's data capacity without paying more?

 

[go2church]

Apply what you said to your phone, would you be happy with that, would that be fair treatment? The whole not in the constitution arguement is just silly, stay on task here.

Haven't even touched on the companies like Verizon that have wired and wireless interests.

 

[go2church]

If the service of Netflix is dependent on another business then this is fair and appropriate. What is inappropriate is to characterize this issue as a who when it should be a what.

Not when they allowing similar businesses unfettered access

 

[InTheLight]

Apply what you said to your phone, would you be happy with that, would that be fair treatment?

Isn't that what DSL is all about? If I receive internet on my phone lines via DSL I pay more for that. Otherwise I have a plethora of choices with my phone line as used as a phone. Voicemail, Caller ID, custom ringing, caller ID with blocking, etc. I pay more for these services.

The whole not in the constitution arguement is just silly, stay on task here.

I didn't bring it up. And yes, it's silly to say that we have a right to information.

Haven't even touched on the companies like Verizon that have wired and wireless interests.

Go for it.

 

[InTheLight]

Not when they allowing similar businesses unfettered access

So what you're saying is the government should be able to come into someone's business and tell them who they will sell to, at what price, and what products they will sell to them? Is that it?

 

[go2church]

So what you're saying is the government should be able to come into someone's business and tell them who they will sell to, at what price, and what products they will sell to them? Is that it?

Called non-discrimination and it is on the books for good reason. If say Comcast is going to allow Hulu to steam un-throttled, they have to allow let Netflix the same opportunity. If Netflix service is not good, the market will dictate that it will die, but it dies based on services rendered, not because of unequal access.

Not getting into the fear mongering hysterics of government controlling pricing, etc...

Concerning double and triple interested companies like Verizon - they were the ones fighting cell phones being able to access your wireless router at home, use our 3G network instead - sure it is slower and will cost you more but hey find another provider, oh that's right we bought them all up and you don't have any options, too bad. There is a definite conflict of interest that puts the public in the place of not having any options for service. You're worried about the government controlling things, look what Comcast, Verizon and ATT are doing!

These companies paid the government for the right to provide internet service, remember the auctions for particular frequency spectrums, these are public "air waves" and the public should have equal access to them.

 

[InTheLight]

Called non-discrimination and it is on the books for good reason. If say Comcast is going to allow Hulu to steam un-throttled, they have to allow let Netflix the same opportunity. If Netflix service is not good, the market will dictate that it will die, but it dies based on services rendered, not because of unequal access.

Non-discrimination laws are on the books to prevent denying goods and services for reasons of race, religion, color, or national origin. If Comcast doesn't want to sell to Netflix there is nothing Netflix can do about it.

Not getting into the fear mongering hysterics of government controlling pricing, etc...

"Fear mongering hysterics", sheesh. Sure, it's your prerogative, however one of the FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai, is getting into it:

Pai insisted that by invoking Title II, the FCC is giving itself the authority to determine whether a variety of practices—including prices—are "just and reasonable."

"The claim that President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false," Pai said. "Indeed, the only limit on the FCC's discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are 'just and reasonable,' which isn't much of a restriction at all."

Pai also warned that the rules could eventually lead to new government fees on Internet service. Consumers already have to pay an FCC fee on their monthly phone bills to support a fund that subsidizes phone and Internet service around the country.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...ing-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210

Concerning double and triple interested companies like Verizon - they were the ones fighting cell phones being able to access your wireless router at home, use our 3G network instead - sure it is slower and will cost you more but hey find another provider, oh that's right we bought them all up and you don't have any options, too bad. There is a definite conflict of interest that puts the public in the place of not having any options for service. You're worried about the government controlling things, look what Comcast, Verizon and ATT are doing!

How many wireless phone providers are out there? A dozen? And we do have low-cost internet access via our home networks instead of being forced to use data connections. Looks like the market sorted out this problem.

These companies paid the government for the right to provide internet service, remember the auctions for particular frequency spectrums, these are public "air waves" and the public should have equal access to them.

They do. And there are more airwaves available to the public than just the ones they auctioned off to the wireless carriers.