HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Obviously nobody knows anything at this point but, playing the Devil's advocate, what if this guy ends up being right? 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
FCC Commissioner: Public Is Being Misled About Net-Neutrality Plan
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
From Ajit Pai's Wikipedia page:
"Years earlier, he served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives."
Yep he was a lawyer for a telecom company. Possible bias (payoff) detected.
"Years earlier, he served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives."
Yep he was a lawyer for a telecom company. Possible bias (payoff) detected.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Yeah, Ajit's attack on net neutrality isn't new, he's been doing it in the past, hell google "ajit pai netflix" and you'll see that he's almost on a holy mission to prevent any sort of reclassification on the internet because he's trying to keep his overlords happy.
I dont like the government in anyones baily wick to the degree net neutrality will. But the cable companies did this to themselves when they decided not to compete against each other and maintain the same rules they had during their government enforced monopoly
And Wheeler was a cable lobbyist. Let's not sit here and pretend that the net neutrality side is all angels and rainbows.
The real reason for anything that America does, money, power, control. Of course the 'net neutrality' issue will actually be about greater control over the economy of the internet.
The sole benefactor being the elite, with the average american reaping a small pittance from it, while raping the rest of the world because, you are not American.
The sole benefactor being the elite, with the average american reaping a small pittance from it, while raping the rest of the world because, you are not American.
Shmee
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,148
I am all for net neutrality, but at the same time I know they are going to screw it up. I mean look at the wonderful job they have done with our land line phone service and radio frequency licensing.
Everyone who says “the free market screwed us over” forgets that there never was a free market because the FCC and lobbyists sold us off to large corporations and localized monopolies. If I was allowed to choose my cable company, or had a wide verity of ISP’s to choose from we wouldn’t have this problem because I would just use the company that gave me what I wanted for the price I was willing to spend. That has never been an option.
Anyone who thinks Title II is going to fix anything is just kidding themselves. They will find a way to make things worse.
Everyone who says “the free market screwed us over” forgets that there never was a free market because the FCC and lobbyists sold us off to large corporations and localized monopolies. If I was allowed to choose my cable company, or had a wide verity of ISP’s to choose from we wouldn’t have this problem because I would just use the company that gave me what I wanted for the price I was willing to spend. That has never been an option.
Anyone who thinks Title II is going to fix anything is just kidding themselves. They will find a way to make things worse.
This fact will be ignored or downplayed for convenience.
The government is here to help you. You are a true believer. Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses. Thou art a subject of the divine. Created in the image of man, by the masses, for the masses.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Are you speaking about ISPs specifically, or in general, because there is a reason the FCC came into existence in teh first place...
Shmee
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,148
Mostly just about ISPs. I understand the FCC has a reason to exist, but they are horrible at their job, and I am pretty sure they are not going to get better at it any time soon. Even if they are saying the right things, they will implement them incorrectly, and we will have a bigger mess on your hand that we will pay more for somehow.
Of course WB Cable and Comcast are screwing us over because they don’t have a good reason not to. If they would have ever had to compete for a customer, things may have been different.
Obviously nobody knows anything at this point but, playing the Devil's advocate, what if this guy ends up being right?
He's a conservative and of course against Wheeler's plan. Conservatives have been against any changes from day one on behalf of their corporate "masters".
Yeah, but Wheeler is practically cut from the same cloth himself. Back before the delay on the voting, there was every indication that Wheeler was going to tow the corporate line himself. If anything, over the past year, the FCC has been staggeringly indecisive and having trouble even recognizing how completely screwed our current internet situation is. It's one thing to debate the best way to proceed, it's another to being completely oblivious to an obvious problem for so long.
crusty_juggler
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,241
Neither the Obama administration, nor the telecom lobby have your best interests in mind. If you think either group is on your side, you're a fool.
Mugato
Muh Feelz!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 933
Amen, finally a rational statement...I was glancing over Ars today on this topic and I cannot believe how many sheep there are, I felt the Ars community was very logical until recently. In the words of Obi wan, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy"
Wheeler was basically a telecom lobbyist. So you side with him?
The Veterans Administration....the Internal Revenue Service....The Department of Home Land Security.....keep drinking that Kool Aid, friend.
And the democrats don't have "masters" corporate or otherwise? Just different masters, maybe.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,771
He's a republican on the side of big corporations... I think the new rules will be a good thing.
I read very recently someplace, that Time Warner Cable's profit margin on internet service is 97%. If this is even close to being true, these damn companies don't need yet another way to bilk their customers, nor do any of the other ISP's.
Obama's example of the city that built its' own fiber service to compete with a completely crappy company, is meant to show that it can be done affordably. And Ajit Pai's comments were probably written verbatim by Verizon or whoever else is paying him off.
I read very recently someplace, that Time Warner Cable's profit margin on internet service is 97%. If this is even close to being true, these damn companies don't need yet another way to bilk their customers, nor do any of the other ISP's.
Obama's example of the city that built its' own fiber service to compete with a completely crappy company, is meant to show that it can be done affordably. And Ajit Pai's comments were probably written verbatim by Verizon or whoever else is paying him off.
Ha ha, I came to a different conclusion about 5 years ago.
Absolutely, though looking for it in our political system isn't a good place to find it.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
As Reagan once said, The nine scariest words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"
aShrubbery!
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,029
As Reagan once said, The nine scariest words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"
The sad part is, that the private sector is not there to help you either, but to provide the highest profit margins possible to benefit their shareholders.
It's been like this in matters of health care insurance, financing, telecoms, broadband, infrastructure and I am sure people could list more.
And we know how it all has been turning out.
Yeah, gov't is 'terrible', but at least officials can get voted out of office. And with gov't officials elected, with legislature favoring corporations to be as unaccountable as they can, corporations won't do jack to make sure consumer interests are not put before corporate interests.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am less concerned with the price of internet and more concerned with speed ... I don't have any issues paying $50/month for internet access but I would prefer that to be for gigabit speeds rather than 50 Mbps speeds ... although if we got enough competition we would have both (slower and cheaper choices and faster but more expensive choices)
That said, I don't expect this regulation to change either pricing or competition ... I expect it to focus on allowing cities to create their own services and enforcing the the Net Neutrality rules on the fast lanes ... any interference on pricing or changes to the last mile policies would incur the wrath of investors on Wall street and I don't think the government has the stomach to attempt that this close to the next election
But upon waking up, what are your options? Drop your pants and bend over, or climb the ladder and make someone else your bitch. Tis better to stay asleep.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
There is nothing wrong with profit or benefiting your stockholder (if you are a public company) ... the issue has been where profits are artificially inflated by market restrictions (like the limits on the number of ISPs in a region) or where the stockholder benefits come in illegal or disingenuous ways (Enron, subprime CDO market, etc) ... capitalism is intended to reward BOTH companies AND consumers (not one at the expense of the other ... which is where our problems have occurred)
flashoverride
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 496
Cities creating their own services. Let me translate that for you: taxes from citizens being collected and then used on a pseudo-profit basis by a largely unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that will be utilized in the least efficient manner possible in an attempt to game the playing field and drive private sector companies out of business.
Do you think cities will exempt themselves from 90 day public comment periods? Exempt themselves from fees? Misuse imminent domain, a la Kelo? Oh yes they will. And with access to capital funds at a much lower rate, why wouldn't they? They can charge everyone in an area by upping assessments of property taxes or bumping up the sales tax *even if the local user does not partake in the service*. If the locals don't comply, they can seize their property for non-payment of taxes and sell it at a profit! What could possibly go wrong?
See: civil forfeiture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
State ownership of the means of production.
Здравствуйте, Това́рищ!
Can you really vote anyone out of office and make a difference?
30 years ago I use to compare the US political system to a specific parliamentary system by saying in a parliamentary system, anyone can become prime minister but not everyone may become prime minister. You literally had three closed self-regulated clubs to choose from. At the time the US system was a little more open. Then the parties in the US locked themselves down and created legislation blocking campaign advantages they have from independents and smaller parties. They've successfully made the Democrats and Republicans two entrenched closed clubs with rare, very rare exception. So now everywhere its pretty much everyone can become an elected official but not everyone may become an elected official.
Anyway, the counter to your fears of 'private' enterprise is suppose to be competition. Its like being able to vote a guy out of office by giving your money to someone else. However, preserving competition requires preventing monopoly formation. One of the rare things the government may be good for, when they do it. However, the government looks the other way on that issue most times. And often, like in the case of cable, they grant monopoly privileges in return for some attempt to obtain some social engineered result. In cables case, it was rolling out broadband. The companies jumped on the monopoly thing and dragged their feet on the roll out thing, and the government did nothing. Whenever you regulate an industry into being a marionette agent of government if just becomes a Crony cash generator for politicians.
And when business and government are tight and in bed together, who are you going to run to? At least if business and government are at a distance from each other, if a business is doing something 'unfair', you can run to government. When its really just the government, you basically have to suck it.
... capitalism is intended to reward BOTH companies AND consumers (not one at the expense of the other ... which is where our problems have occurred)
LOL capitalism has very little to do with "rewarding the consumer". Capitalism is about making the most amount of money while utilizing and/or spending the least amount of money to produce the product that's being sold. It does not care about competition, producing a good product (if someone can sell a shit product they will if someone will buy it), fair wages, etc. Captialism has always been about extracting the most amount of money or energy out of someone. If it produces a product that people like, well that's nothing more than a side effect. Rarely is it the goal.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
The corporations are saying through their GOP lackeys that the government's ultimate goal with net neutrality is to collect taxes on internet traffic. This is apparently going to be much worse than the corporations' plan to... what was that again? Say it with me... block and slow... bloooock and slooooow....
The corporations are saying through their GOP lackeys that the government's ultimate goal with net neutrality is to collect taxes on internet traffic. This is apparently going to be much worse than the corporations' plan to... what was that again? Say it with me... block and slow... bloooock and slooooow....
Yeah, even by his definitions, the "employees" or "the environment" aren't really part of the equation as to what gets rewarded. So if a capitalist wants to invest in an operation to mine coal, he'll make a good profit from selling the coal in the ground, the people buying the coal need it, the workers get dangerous work at shit wages because unions have been dismantled, and everyone in the surrounding area gets runoff toxins in their ground water supply which leads to cancer some 15+ years down the road. Everybody wins!
Lets teach them both a lesson and cut the internet tubes from the telephone poles and light that shit on fire!
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
You make it sound like its someones' obligation to help you. As if it wasn't enough that someone took a risk and started a business to make available goods and services for public consumption. Corporation don't put a gun to your head and say buy our product or else. If you don't like a corporation, don't buy their stuff. And the last time I checked most public officials get reelected regardless of performance.
Also a point most people seem to miss Big Government = Big Corporations. Our corporations got so big and powerful thanks to the ever growing Government. You can't bribe a congressman to do things he has no power over. When you ask for more government intrusion into free market, all you get is a new more powerful bureaucracy whose members are appointed rather than elected and easily corruptible.
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
+1, There were many safe guards originally build into the constitution against the sort of thing, but over the span of the republic, they were weakened or removed. The whole limited small government thing is now nothing more than a dead rabbit they use as a talking point now and then.
Who was that Greek philosopher who said 2700 years ago "The more laws there are, the more corrupt a society becomes"
Be wary when government thinks something is a good idea. This usually means that they are going to tax the crap out of it. If this goes through this will pave the way for government to steal yet even more money from people in the form of fees. Your 50 dollars a month broadband bill just turned into $80 a month. The kleptomaniacs in congress are salivating at the thought of using this money to buy more votes.
It was never a thing. It was never even apart of American History unless you are talking about before the Civil War.
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
Are you sure? at the turn of the 20th century, the government comprised less than 7% of the GDP. Before Obamacare it was 40%. Now estimate range from 50 to 60%.