Former FCC Chairman Calls Ajit Pai’s Plan to Gut Net Neutrality an “Abomination”

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is describing Ajit Pai‘s plan to dismantle net neutrality as an attempt by internet service providers to “de-fang” its regulators. “The abomination of this is how they’re doing it,” Wheeler said. “They’re walking away from the responsibility the FCC has had since 1934 to oversee networks.”

Wheeler also disagreed with Pai’s assertion that net neutrality rules stifle innovation, calling the claims “untrue.” Wheeler made the comments on Wednesday afternoon with Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Anna Eshoo. Markey called the Dec. 14 vote a “day of reckoning” and said he expects the FCC’s plan to be challenged in court.
 
Probably the worst part is how they want to preempt net neutrality legislation at the state level. It's clear Ajit Pai doesn't just want to rollback regulation or hand off the responsibility to the FTC - he wants to enable ISPs to do whatever they want.
 
Wierdo said:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eal-helps-isps-keep-their-hidden-fees-hidden/



This is certainly what the consumers asked for, hidden fees and charges again, just like the good old days.
Click to expand...

Yup, and they will probably set you up for much longer contracts. First every isp will simultaneously nullify all existing contracts, to usher in this new era of savings! Get you in on some $99 triple play, but five year contract. First bill comes, it's really $186 after all the fees and surcharges, and it goes up $80 every year. $1,000/month remaining on your contract early termination fee. Oh, and data caps will change over time to be lower and lower, and your speed and channel selection probably will too.
 
Had a lot of doubts about Wheeler when he stepped into the role, but he proved me wrong and turned out mostly ok.

Pai has looked like a dick from the start, and still looks like one now, just bigger. ;)
 
All this prophecy. it's enlightening.

Crystal ball oh crystal ball ....... guys you are being fed a load of horseshit.

Does it sound scary?

That should be your first clue that your being fed a bunch of horseshit.

Pai says that they are keeping the transparency rules "with a few modifications" Then this author turns right around and tries to convince us that Pai's going to fuck us on .... transparency.

That's what the hidden fees and cost of service parts of the rules were about.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/open-internet-transparency-rule
The FCC's Open Internet Transparency Rule empowers consumers to make informed choices about broadband services. The Rule requires that what providers tell you about their broadband service is sufficient for you to make informed choices – including choices about speed and price. The rule also requires that providers' information about their broadband service must be accurate and truthful.

The rule covers disclosures about "network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service." The Rule applies to service descriptions, including, for example, expected and actual broadband speed and latency. The Rule also applies to pricing, including monthly prices, usage-based fees, and any other additional fees that consumers may be charged. Additionally, it covers providers' network management practices, such as congestion management practices and the types of traffic subject to those practices.
Click to expand...

Wierdo, the author of your Arstechnica article claims that;

Here are the disclosures that ISPs currently have to make—but won't have to after the repeal:

  • Price—the full monthly service charge. Any promotional rates should be clearly noted as such, specify the duration of the promotional period and the full monthly service charge the consumer will incur after the expiration of the promotional period.
  • Other Fees—all additional one time and/or recurring fees and/or surcharges the consumer may incur either to initiate, maintain, or discontinue service, including the name, definition, and cost of each additional fee. These may include modem rental fees, installation fees, service charges, and early termination fees, among others.
  • Data Caps and Allowances—any data caps or allowances that are a part of the plan the consumer is purchasing, as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap or allowance (e.g., additional charges, loss of service for the remainder of the billing cycle).
Click to expand...

Followed immediately by;

"[W]e retain the transparency rule as established in the [2010] Open Internet Order, with some modifications, and eliminate the additional reporting obligations of the [2015] Title II Order," Pai's proposal says. "We find many of those additional reporting obligations significantly increased the burdens imposed on ISPs without providing countervailing benefits to consumers or the Commission."
Click to expand...

So if the FCC is not repealing the transparency rules, then these specific concerns of yours look invalid.

That should be good news.
 
""They’re walking away from the responsibility the FCC has had since 1934 to oversee networks.""

Sure, because prior to 2016 the Internet was so bad, so awful, the government needed to step in, right?
 
RogueTadhg said:
I think that you're the only one on [H] that supports the repeal of Net Neutrality, Icpiper.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

An intelligent person would take the opportunity to reexamine their assumptions and the bias leading them to state such falsehoods. What else do you just "know"?
 
GlowingGhoul said:
""They’re walking away from the responsibility the FCC has had since 1934 to oversee networks.""

Sure, because prior to 2016 the Internet was so bad, so awful, the government needed to step in, right?
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, in 2010, Comcast sued to stop peer-to-peer connections, in particular BitTorrent. Those various court cases led to the Government to set up these new NN regulations to ensure ISPs can't stop people from using BitTorrent as a example.

Everyone, please remember Comcast owns NBC and Universal Pictures and a bunch of other media content producing businesses. It is not at all unlikely to think that Comcast would want to stop those torrents of tv and movies. The repeal of these regulations will leave that option open, and in a age of cord-cutting draining cable profits, I'm sure Comcast would like nothing more than to strangle all your illegal content streaming and force you to pay for Hulu.
 
RogueTadhg said:
I think that you're the only one on [H] that supports the repeal of Net Neutrality, Icpiper.
Click to expand...


I don't think of it as the repeal of Net Neutrality, I think of it as Net Neutrality by other means, meaning I find the FCC prior actions as an incorrect solution to a potential problem by an Agency not granted the powers to successfully see the solution to it's intended end.

The right spirit and good intentions by the wrong part of the government.

I see NN as a series of controls and preventative measures put in place ostensibly, to prevent unfair and anti-competitive practices, like giving certain content providers unfair advantage, or not protecting customer data properly. Selling it when they said they wouldn't, forcing services on people that they don't want.

And I see numerous examples of the FTC winning cases for exactly these kinds of excesses. I see that ever since the FCC reclassified the Internet as a Title II utility, that because ISPs were seen in the courts as common carriers (as their status), while ignoring that they were also frequently doing other business like being content providers, that things weren't going right. The FCC had cut the FTC's ability to enforce, what they have always enforced, when it came to ISPs as "Utilities".

So I see what is happening with the FCC and in the courts with the FTC and I am optimistic despite my natural pessimistic outlook toward the government and how good they are at screwing things up.

So I just think that the FCC was the wrong "man" for the job, (proven by how they could stop ISPs from selling your personal info but not a provider like google, who isn't a common carrier, doesn't supply the Internet as a "Utility"). I also believe the FTC is the right "man" for the job, but God knows if they will actually get this right or not. The track record doesn't lead to an optimistic outlook. But NN was already in trouble in practice and with the courts.

But just getting the FCC to let go and the FTC back in the game isn't enough. There is still room for Congress to amend some legislation to bring everything really on track.

Good fucking luck there right.
 
It doesn't bother me as much that he's doing it , it's the outright "f**k you" he's giving to the population. He's literally waving a sign saying "I'm on bigISP payroll, what're you going to do about it?"

If the citizens of this country can't outright stop that level of corruption, it really highlights where our political system is.

As for Ajit, I personally hope he spends the rest of his life being hacked and having every detail of his life continually exposed.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't think of it as the repeal of Net Neutrality, I think of it as Net Neutrality by other means, meaning I find the FCC prior actions as an incorrect solution to a potential problem by an Agency not granted the powers to successfully see the solution to it's intended end.

The right spirit and good intentions by the wrong part of the government.

I see NN as a series of controls and preventative measures put in place ostensibly, to prevent unfair and anti-competitive practices, like giving certain content providers unfair advantage, or not protecting customer data properly. Selling it when they said they wouldn't, forcing services on people that they don't want.

And I see numerous examples of the FTC winning cases for exactly these kinds of excesses. I see that ever since the FCC reclassified the Internet as a Title II utility, that because ISPs were seen in the courts as common carriers (as their status), while ignoring that they were also frequently doing other business like being content providers, that things weren't going right. The FCC had cut the FTC's ability to enforce, what they have always enforced, when it came to ISPs as "Utilities".

So I see what is happening with the FCC and in the courts with the FTC and I am optimistic despite my natural pessimistic outlook toward the government and how good they are at screwing things up.

So I just think that the FCC was the wrong "man" for the job, (proven by how they could stop ISPs from selling your personal info but not a provider like google, who isn't a common carrier, doesn't supply the Internet as a "Utility"). I also believe the FTC is the right "man" for the job, but God knows if they will actually get this right or not. The track record doesn't lead to an optimistic outlook. But NN was already in trouble in practice and with the courts.

But just getting the FCC to let go and the FTC back in the game isn't enough. There is still room for Congress to amend some legislation to bring everything really on track.

Good fucking luck there right.
Click to expand...
FTC might lose its power to enforce any regulation regarding ISP's due to a current court case, this is Pai's main argument, let the FTC deal with anticompetitive practices etc, without realizing they tried, then failed, and when the FTC wasnt enouhg to stop the bullshit ISP's were pulling on us, they instituted the net neutrality rules. If the FTC loses this court case after the vote on the 14th, we have legit ZERO oversight of ISP's.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't think of it as the repeal of Net Neutrality, I think of it as Net Neutrality by other means, meaning I find the FCC prior actions as an incorrect solution to a potential problem by an Agency not granted the powers to successfully see the solution to it's intended end.

The right spirit and good intentions by the wrong part of the government.

I see NN as a series of controls and preventative measures put in place ostensibly, to prevent unfair and anti-competitive practices, like giving certain content providers unfair advantage, or not protecting customer data properly. Selling it when they said they wouldn't, forcing services on people that they don't want.

And I see numerous examples of the FTC winning cases for exactly these kinds of excesses. I see that ever since the FCC reclassified the Internet as a Title II utility, that because ISPs were seen in the courts as common carriers (as their status), while ignoring that they were also frequently doing other business like being content providers, that things weren't going right. The FCC had cut the FCC's ability to enforce, what they have always enforced, when it came to ISPs.

So I see what is happening with the FCC and in the courts with the FTC and I am optimistic despite my natural pessimistic outlook toward the government and how good they are at screwing things up.

So I just think that the FCC was the wrong "man" for the job, (proven by how they could stop ISPs from selling your personal info but not a provider like google, who isn't a common carrier, doesn't supply the Internet as a "Utility"). I also believe the FTC is the right "man" for the job, but God knows if they will actually get this right or not. The track record doesn't lead to an optimistic outlook. But NN was already in trouble in practice and with the courts.

But just getting the FCC to let go and the FTC back in the game isn't enough. There is still room for Congress to amend some legislation to bring everything really on track.

Good fucking luck there right.
Click to expand...

The day is fast approaching where Google, Facebook, and etc are gonna be seen as the monopolistic entities they rapidly are becoming, but sadly, most people dont realize how valuable their data is, and the nature of these businesses make it particularly hard to switch from. Maybe Google pisses off Republicans enough one day where they force some laws to pass there, but I kinda doubt it.

Also, as someone who supports NN, seeing people who support the repeal assert that people who support NN are simply being Google's bitch is particularly galling. Ask me if I want Google and Facebook and etc to have free speech laws or monopoly regulations (etc, etc) against them, and I'll say damn yes. Just cause I want ISPs to have regulations does not make me someone who thinks Google, Reddit, or Facebook can do no wrong.
 
RaxusCraxurFace said:
Nope he's not
Click to expand...
When your ISP blocks your VOIP servers and send you a notice that for 39.99/mo they will unblock your VOIP server, you will know why we had NN. When you ISP blocks Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. streaming servers and send you a notice that for 39/99/mo they will unblock ONE of your streaming servers you will know why we had NN. The ISPs will turn the internet into a 21st century cable TV.
 
Spidey329 said:
It doesn't bother me as much that he's doing it , it's the outright "f**k you" he's giving to the population. He's literally waving a sign saying "I'm on bigISP payroll, what're you going to do about it?"
Click to expand...

No AShit Pai is a whore that will say whatever he is paid to say.
 
I hope the loonies that love all this harm that is being done are the ones hurt the worst by it. That's never the case the though.
 
More crying. Obama said the Affordable Care Act will save you money. LOL
Cry some more.
 
Despotes said:
More crying. Obama said the Affordable Care Act will save you money. LOL
Cry some more.
Click to expand...

lol, it does unless your employer uses a loop hole to fuck you over like mine does.. they offer bare minimum insurance which is literally unusable because the nearest in network office is a 3 hour drive for me. but because they offered you medical insurance you are exempt from the tax credit benefit of getting your own insurance at a discounted price..
 
Despotes said:
More crying. Obama said the Affordable Care Act will save you money. LOL
Cry some more.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread, chief.

Also, have you really never noticed how one man's "crying" is another man's "bravely protesting injustice"? No, I thought not.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't think of it as the repeal of Net Neutrality, I think of it as Net Neutrality by other means, meaning I find the FCC prior actions as an incorrect solution to a potential problem by an Agency not granted the powers to successfully see the solution to it's intended end.
Click to expand...

The FCC is literally the ONLY government entity that has been granted the powers required.

And I see numerous examples of the FTC winning cases for exactly these kinds of excesses. I see that ever since the FCC reclassified the Internet as a Title II utility, that because ISPs were seen in the courts as common carriers (as their status), while ignoring that they were also frequently doing other business like being content providers, that things weren't going right. The FCC had cut the FTC's ability to enforce, what they have always enforced, when it came to ISPs as "Utilities".
Click to expand...

The FTC is pretty much limited to false advertising issues. And your listed of cases all reflect back on that and don't really even cover the majority of NN issues.
 
People can argue over the nuts and bolts of what the FCC should and shouldn't be able to do and so on. It's meaningless to me because there is one thing I know in the very fiber of my being. And that is: corporations WILL fuck over the public if it means more profits. It may not be immediately. It may be death of a thousand paper cuts over decades, but when you have all the time in the world to move the goalposts an inch at a time, it's amazing what you can achieve.
 
Keno said:
My premiums went down since the ACA..... Also It allowed me to stay insured after having a cancer diagnosis. So yeah, you should stop crying.
Click to expand...

My premiums went up. All while having worse coverage. And that also includes a cancer diagnosis, surgery and the honor of knowing my oncologist by his first name for the next decade or two.
 
Al Gore was born in 1946 and didn't invent the internet until much later. How then, could the FCC oversee networks in 1934? Proof of government agencies using time travel has arrived ladies and gents! PROOF I TELL YOU!
 
Schtask said:
Al Gore was born in 1946 and didn't invent the internet until much later. How then, could the FCC oversee networks in 1934? Proof of government agencies using time travel has arrived ladies and gents! PROOF I TELL YOU!
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the telegraph or wired telephone? There's also radio... those communication networks all pre-date 1934 by quite a bit...

Ajit Pai is pretty much a buffoon... A complete fucktard in my book. He's completely unqualified for the position he's in and basically a corporate stooge. I don't give a rat's ass about politics, hate politics actually, but what he's doing isn't going to help any of us out.

And don't get me started on Al Gore....
 
Can we get off the daily net neutrality bitching? Seriously, I am sure its not the case, but it feels like all Megalith reports on anymore...
 
percydaman said:
My premiums went up. All while having worse coverage. And that also includes a cancer diagnosis, surgery and the honor of knowing my oncologist by his first name for the next decade or two.
Click to expand...

Our premiums went up as well, then when I turned 60, I got told I was being cut back to part-time because the health insurance rates were going to go up 50% becuase of my age and while they cannot drop me if I am full-time, they can drop me if I am part-time. So they did and so now I pay a butt load of money every month for health insurance.

We also noted a drastic drop in what the insurance companies would cover while they increased the deductible by a huge amount. We also got screwed over when my Wife had cancer, and while going through all that, we have to pay the deductible again, after the first of the year as insurance companies no longer have to honor pre-existing conditions.

So do not expect me to be a fan of what has happened with our health insurance situation.


Back to the topic at hand.

The FTC will not do a thing about ISP's breaking any type of trade laws. I know from first hand experience about that. I ran an ISP for many years until Verizon decided to call each and every customer of mine and offer them free Internet, for a year, if they switched. They got my customer phone numbers from their network as I was in Verizon territory. When I confronted them about it, I was told, and I quote, "That is just the way we do business now.".

I know another ISP who tried to take them to court over the same thing. He won a judgement. He never collected it. Ended up committing suicide after he lost everything. I sold my business and got out before it degraded to the point of being worthless.

The FTC never responded to any complaints. The state PUC's response was along the lines of, "independent ISP's are the biggest problem" and they turned a blind eye as well. It was an excersise in how the systems you are supposed to count on for "checks and balances" really are not there for you, at all.

Guees what? There is nothing illegal about any enforcement agency not enforcing anything.

Make no mistake about it. None of the big ISP's are your friend. They do not care about you. They are only in it for the profit margins they can increase. To that end, they will do anything. You leave a crack in the door for them and they will take advantage of it. Mark my words.
 
90 percent of the issues with the ACA were specifically intended by right wingers. Rubio bragged about sabotaging it in the primaries.

It also saved lives, my dad, and myself included.

I wish people understood how this country treats sick people, was born sick. I didn't do anything to get sick, I just was born sick. It cost me jobs before the ACA. It's probably about to get me fired as soon as they can stop paying.

Few extra bucks saved millions of people's lives and so many could not give one fuck because you aren't directly impacted.
There is literally no point in the country existing if it's every man for himself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top