Trump’s F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules

NY Times ^ | 02/05/17 | CECILIA KANG

[entropy12]

WASHINGTON — In his first days as President Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai has aggressively moved to roll back consumer protection regulations created during the Obama presidency.

Mr. Pai took a first swipe at net neutrality rules designed to ensure equal access to content on the internet. He stopped nine companies from providing discounted high-speed internet service to low-income individuals. He withdrew an effort to keep prison phone rates down, and he scrapped a proposal to break open the cable box market.

In total, as the chairman of the F.C.C., Mr. Pai released about a dozen actions in the last week, many buried in the agency’s website and not publicly announced, stunning consumer advocacy groups and telecom analysts. They said Mr. Pai’s message was clear: The F.C.C., an independent agency, will mirror the Trump administration’s rapid unwinding of government regulations that businesses fought against during the Obama administration.

“With these strong-arm tactics, Chairman Pai is showing his true stripes,” said Matt Wood, the policy director at the consumer group Free Press.

[entropy12]

Another pro-business (=more middle class jobs) appointee by POTUS Trump. Go Ajit Pai!

[LostInBayport]

The slant in this piece is amazing. First they presume they are “consumer protection” regulations, which is a nice way of saying free $#!^ for people who don’t pay for it.

Second, they lie and say that the FCC is stopping companies from providing services at discounted rates. The FCC is saying no such thing; they are simply saying the government will not subsidize said discounted rates.

The New York Times is slime, stinky sticky slime. They are the enemy of a free people. I pray I live long enough to see that paper fold and its title consigned to the ash heap of history.

[60Gunner]

“With these strong-arm tactics, Chairman Pai is showing his true stripes,” said Matt Wood, the policy director at the consumer group Free Press."

Hell yeah. And I like those stripes.

[VitacoreVision]

Good. I’m anti-Net Neutrality.

[Nomad577]

Changing net neutrality makes me nervous.

[palmer]

Net neutrality is a pseudonym for unlimited streaming. If you want unlimited streaming, particularly HD, from a service of your choice, your provider won't have the BW to support yours and everyone else's. So they will throttle. They could also push their own streaming services but that's a separate issue.

Anything else is simply a red herring. if you want some content from some provider there's absolutely nothing your provider can do to stop that. Just ask the people in China with the worst, most censorious provider on the planet, expect maybe North Korea. They get the content they want through Tor. However they can't do streaming video since that can be throttled just like what your provider would do if you are overusing bandwidth.

Then there is the "I paid for the BW" argument. No you didn't. You don't pay enough to get your own HD streaming connection through the network

[Tzimisce]

The Supreme Court already said the government doesn’t have the power to implement Net Neutrality.

Obama did it anyway.

[Boogieman]

Net neutrality = socialized internet.

[entropy12]

Net neutrality is another name for freebies = welfare..

[entropy12]

Oh yes, BHO issued dozens and dozens of EO’s, and the media had zero problem with it, there were no street riots, no unhinged actresses, no marches by conservatives, and no lawsuits by republicans in the 9th circuit. In other words the country club republicans just turned the other cheek.

[Yaelle]

I wish I understood net neutrality. My gamer sons think it’s very important. I tend not to trust a government, not that I trust corporations either. Which is the most freedom oriented way for the consumer?

[CurlyDave]

...Then there is the "I paid for the BW" argument. No you didn't. You don't pay enough to get your own HD streaming connection through the network...

There are some people who do pay for the bandwidth.

When I lived in the city, I could get "standard" cable modem speeds for one price and for a higher price I could get 25Mbps. The extra speed was worth the relatively minor cost.

Now I live out in the sticks and the best I can do is microwave internet. They still have a tiered pricing plan, even though they do not like to sell the highest one. But I am still paying for my bandwidth.

[Myrddin]

Net neutrality is redistribution of wealth by government edict. The internet is a conglomeration of privately purchased servers, routers and network paths. Each end user pays an ISP for "last mile" access. The ISP uses the proceeds to pay for buildings, power, cooling, routers, network connections to other networks and management staff. A large number of tiny businesses working in their own little space. Bandwidth is very much sensitive to how much has been invested in each small business. End to end performance steps through tens of these small enterprises. The federal government has no business forcing these small businesses to impose a tax on their users and extend subsidized service that is reimbursed by the government via the collected tax revenues. The equipment was not purchased by the government and they have no legal right to seize control of operation and use of the private property.

There is certainly a socialist faction in the internet user community that believes the net is a "public utility" somehow owned and controlled by some larger organization. They believe they have a "right" to unlimited use of this "public utility". They are dead wrong. The only part of the network that the FCC has any legal hooks in regulating to the telephone and cable companies. They provide the raw network paths between points to that large body of private businesses that run ISP businesses and server farms. The phome companies have to make a capital investment for their network equipment and generally are guaranteed a small, fixed rate of return over an allowed equipment service life. Rates are adjusted periodically to ensure a net profit for the "common carrier". They are content agnostic. It's bandwidth between two points with an agreed level of reliability of service. The telco business isn't very glamorous. I spent 12 years there as a network and IT engineer before moving on to more interesting work as a DoD contractor.

[Myrddin]

I'm living with WiMax service with 15 Mbps down / 7 Mbps up. It's adequate. A couple miles south, the CableOne customers can get 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps service via cable. The Big Dog company in town is rolling out "TruFiber" to the south and east of me right now. It is fiber to the premises with bi-direction 1 Gbps service. Not too shabby for Pocatello. I spoke with the vendor. They are marginally capitalized, so this is going to be a slow roll out. My area is slated for Summer 2017. That last mile performance sounds great. My eagerness to jump on the service depends on whether the backhaul they have set up is suitable. The Syringa network that provides backhaul for my WiMax is all fiber optic with connections to Boise and SLC. Not sure whether it is Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 connections. The point is the choice needs to be measured in the overall performance of the ISP product. TruFiber will likely be between under conditionals of high winds / rain that impact WiMax connectivity via microwave rain fade and twisting towers such that point to point performance is impaired. Fiber is sensitive to street washouts, cutting by utility and street maintenance crews and natural earth movement. Nothing is perfect.

[DeltaZulu]

Thanks for your comments. I work in the software industry and must confess I have/had that “public utility” thought. In my defense, I wasn’t aware of the things you point out. I now understand quite a bit more thanks to your effort. You’ve gone a long way to turning me around.

[onona]

Behind all the smoke and mirrors of the first week, this was one of the all time best moves by Trump.

[palmer]

When you pay for long distance wifi bandwidth you are the closest to actually paying mainly because the backhaul can support every user on the tower. Cell service is the same: tower limited. That’s why cell service providers generally cap downloads. But the people with cable are generally not paying for the bandwidth. The cell company oversubscribes their shared links. That’s a problem, they are misleading their customers. But that has nothing to do with “neutrality”.

[palmer]

My gamer sons think it’s very important.

He uses up some bandwidth although that's not the limiting factor for gaming. He needs low latency. "Neutrality" is the notion that the provider cannot force you to buy their services or some particular service over the one you want. In your son's case, if he is connecting to the game server of his choice and not some shlock server that Cox chooses instead, then his Cox service is neutral. Claims otherwise are specious. To argue that the desire for more bandwidth and lower latency is a desire for "neutrality" is completely incorrect.

[palmer]

I meant to say the cable companies oversubscribe their shared links.

[entropy12]

+10