Ajit Pai Claims Killing Net Neutrality Will Help Sick and Disabled People

Master_shake_ said:
There won't be fastlanes

There'll be regular and slow lanes.

Fastlanes are a myth.
Click to expand...

Obviously. Packets will inherently go as fast as they can, unless restricted in some way. Rather than fix the congestion, they'll throttle people who don't pay up.

I don't know why a single person would believe the horseshit this group flings.
 
PhaseNoise said:
Obviously. Packets will inherently go as fast as they can, unless restricted in some way. Rather than fix the congestion, they'll throttle people who don't pay up.

I don't know why a single person would believe the horseshit this group flings.
Click to expand...
Do you have any historical references for this? And we're talking customers who pay for fast lanes, not netflix who pays even after title 2 was put into place.

I think everyone severely underestimates how much Americans love their entertainment and by that i mean their semi-fast internet. Fast enough to game, stream videos, etc. You screw around with that and you're liable to get your company torched. Whoever starts throttling their customers is mad to think they'll ever get away with it.
 
Nolan7689 said:
We can’t take the joke because counter point to our obsession of owning guns are the actual literal killings that do happen. So every joke threat is treated as being 100% serious. Especially involving officials.

I’m betting your area takes things seriously as well. Like calling in false bomb threats.

On subject. This guy is a real piece of shit. Very obviously serving agendas against what his public servent type position warrants. I love the irony of even now Tom Wheeler a former telecom lobbyist is speaking out against Ajit and the repealing of something he helped to enact.
Click to expand...

Actually nothing is off limit to jokes, as long as both parties understand that it's a joke. Apparently no such understanding was present here. Obviously I wouldn't tell a joke about killing to a known murderer. It wasn't even phrased as a threat.
 
Pringle said:
How previous job was actually chief council for Verizon, sooooooooooo
Click to expand...

Exactly.......worked for ISP/telcom giant......

Now jump to position getting greased by all of them instead of one.

Conflict of interest.....not really.......just single minded interest......
 
triwolf said:
I think he's making an argument for something that already exists, and reality is we will all pay more and it will be even easier for them to censor the truth. I called my congress critters except I doubt they care.
Click to expand...

The truth?

When was the last time anyone tried to tell you the truth about something?
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the internet was just fine before Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality wasn't needed because it was in its infancy and no one thought about hey how can I slow someone else's shit down and speed mine up. It was put in place to keep it from going away because the squabbling between companies was starting to ramp up.
 
Net neutrality hurts babies, kills puppies, prevents the curing of all disease, and causes wars!! It's time to end this once and for all!!!
 
A lot of the people on this forum voted for trump, so I gather there is a lot of support here for Ajit Pai's actions.
 
bezant said:
A lot of the people on this forum voted for trump, so I gather there is a lot of support here for Ajit Pai's actions.
Click to expand...
I don't really care either way. I want the internet to be open and free (as in i don't want others telling me what i can and cannot do as long as i'm not trying to take down other people's networks). I don't think that applying public utility like regulations is the answer. The answer to me is competition and destroying the monopolies the ISPs have enjoyed.
I've posted this many times, but google fiber and municipality ISPs are examples of what happens when competitions breaks up the stranglehold that the big ISPs have. Every single place this has happened, prices have gone down, speeds have gone up and the consumers are the winners.
That's how this is supposed to work.
We already have fast and slow lanes. Go to any ISP's site and read about their internet speeds and offers. You can get crappy ass internet for 20$ a month, or pay more to get gigabit for 100$ a month.
This idea that we don't already throttle other services is short sighted. What do you think data caps are designed to do? Under the disguise of being fair, comcast puts a 1tb cap each month. If you want unlimited it's just 50$ more. It's designed to target their customers who care cord cutters and have a family of people who stream video every day.
Net neutrality doesn't address what happens when you get fed up with comcast and want to switch because there are no other choices.
These fantasy scenarios of ISPs trying to bill per service is pure fantasy. No one in their right minds will sign up for that crap. The FTC will side with the consumers on that if they tried to do that.
 
bezant said:
A lot of the people on this forum voted for trump, so I gather there is a lot of support here for Ajit Pai's actions.
Click to expand...
Don't you know? Politics is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Voters don't vote for the cabinet.

Man, if ever Ajit had a chance of being a man of principles, he's blown it with this and removing State's rights.
 
That's crap. You can always have exceptions for lifesaving and life supporting data. I wouldn't mind a few picoseconds of lag in WoW if somebody's pacemaker needed a reboot or had to inform a doctor of a malfunction or heart issue.
 
He'll probably get on Comcast's payroll as soon as he vacated his position.

Hope he gets the ddos curse forever.
 
UrielDagda said:
That's crap. You can always have exceptions for lifesaving and life supporting data. I wouldn't mind a few picoseconds of lag in WoW if somebody's pacemaker needed a reboot or had to inform a doctor of a malfunction or heart issue.
Click to expand...

You’ll be pleased to know it works fine with todays net neutrality in play, and doesnt require IP packets with magic dust to work correctly.
 
SecretStash said:
Don't you know? Politics is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Voters don't vote for the cabinet.

Man, if ever Ajit had a chance of being a man of principles, he's blown it with this and removing State's rights.
Click to expand...
What??????? Of course you are voting for the candidates cabinet!!! That's the most asinine justification I have ever heard for making a poor decision with your vote. The cabinet is put in place to follow the directive of the candidate. Smfh if this is the future of the US electorate...
 
Yikes, the Net Neutrality ragers are struggling with the natural human nature of kindness first. Why does this mean so much to these people to behave so nasty?
 
viper1152012 said:
He'll probably get on Comcast's payroll as soon as he vacated his position.

Hope he gets the ddos curse forever.
Click to expand...

He is probably on it now. They already have a few other politicians that they are paying. They are ramping up payments to pay people off to shut everyone else down.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the internet was just fine before Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

See and here is the issue with this entire thing. What you and others don't understand is that is exactly what net neutrality does. It keeps thing how it has been and is preventing change not adding to it. We are use to an internet with net neutrality. It was never called that but everything was given equal QOS and just went through the networks equal. If you had Comcast they couldn't block you from going to look at competition to switch your service to. The same for AT&T, Centurylink or any other telephone company. It didn't matter if you were on netlfix or youtube, you downloaded content at whatever speed you could get to those servers. Everything was treated as 1s and 0s and that was it. Then companies started to decided that they didn't like that. Comcast and others decided that they wanted more money and started to slow down your traffic to Netflix on purpose, not because they didn't have the bandwidth to support you watching videos, but just because they didn't like that you were on Netflix. So they then went to Netflix and told them that if they wanted normal speeds through their network they had to pay them a monthly transport fee. This started to open a door for other types of traffic to be adjusted. With the old way you normally only had some different levels of priority. Management access to equipment was at the top, then high availability circuits, voice traffic for the carrier, video for the carrier(for IPTV deployments), then all data for internet traffic. Snooping and changing priority or speeds possible based on the data side wasn't a thing back then but was starting to become the case for many of the top carriers. So when the net neutrality rules came out they did not really add anything new, what they said is that for years you have been running your network as neutral for your customer's traffic and you have to keep it that way. You can't add new structure to charge more for using X type of service over your internet connection, you can't adjust speeds for somebody else's service to make your own service look better. Everyone had to keep doing what they have been doing up till the last few years when this became a thing that needed rules to keep it the same. Net Neutrality should be named, leave the internet alone how it has been for decades, but that is too long of a name.

You know how people bitch about Comcast and the others trying to keep cities from building their own fiber networks? This will hurt that even more, because without the net neutrality rules they can take all traffic coming from those networks and slow it to a crawl and be at now fault in doing so. Comcast already hates my work because we put in fiber and actively upgrade our network while constantly build into new cities to give them fiber. They would love to be able to just take all of our IP blocks and be able to watch for any of our customers going through any of their networks and slow them down to 1kbps. Honestly I am surprised they haven't resorted to paying people to go around and cut companies fibers and cables with some of their current practices. With how furious we have them in my state right now, I can only imagine how pissed they are in other areas.

nysmo said:
The guy driving to work was fine until he crashed his car.
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
Exavior said:
See and here is the issue with this entire thing. What you and others don't understand is that is exactly what net neutrality does. It keeps thing how it has been and is preventing change not adding to it. We are use to an internet with net neutrality. It was never called that but everything was given equal QOS and just went through the networks equal. If you had Comcast they couldn't block you from going to look at competition to switch your service to. The same for AT&T, Centurylink or any other telephone company. It didn't matter if you were on netlfix or youtube, you downloaded content at whatever speed you could get to those servers. Everything was treated as 1s and 0s and that was it. Then companies started to decided that they didn't like that. Comcast and others decided that they wanted more money and started to slow down your traffic to Netflix on purpose, not because they didn't have the bandwidth to support you watching videos, but just because they didn't like that you were on Netflix. So they then went to Netflix and told them that if they wanted normal speeds through their network they had to pay them a monthly transport fee. This started to open a door for other types of traffic to be adjusted. With the old way you normally only had some different levels of priority. Management access to equipment was at the top, then high availability circuits, voice traffic for the carrier, video for the carrier(for IPTV deployments), then all data for internet traffic. Snooping and changing priority or speeds possible based on the data side wasn't a thing back then but was starting to become the case for many of the top carriers. So when the net neutrality rules came out they did not really add anything new, what they said is that for years you have been running your network as neutral for your customer's traffic and you have to keep it that way. You can't add new structure to charge more for using X type of service over your internet connection, you can't adjust speeds for somebody else's service to make your own service look better. Everyone had to keep doing what they have been doing up till the last few years when this became a thing that needed rules to keep it the same. Net Neutrality should be named, leave the internet alone how it has been for decades, but that is too long of a name.

You know how people bitch about Comcast and the others trying to keep cities from building their own fiber networks? This will hurt that even more, because without the net neutrality rules they can take all traffic coming from those networks and slow it to a crawl and be at now fault in doing so. Comcast already hates my work because we put in fiber and actively upgrade our network while constantly build into new cities to give them fiber. They would love to be able to just take all of our IP blocks and be able to watch for any of our customers going through any of their networks and slow them down to 1kbps. Honestly I am surprised they haven't resorted to paying people to go around and cut companies fibers and cables with some of their current practices. With how furious we have them in my state right now, I can only imagine how pissed they are in other areas.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality doesn't address the fact that Comcast is a monopoly and applies public utility like regulations on a for profit company allowing them to continue to be a monopoly.

the problem with Comcast is that you don't have a choice. Even if you had one more choice, then comcast couldn't and wouldn't throttle anything because the competition wouldn't and everyone would switch.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Net neutrality doesn't address the fact that Comcast is a monopoly and applies public utility like regulations on a for profit company allowing them to continue to be a monopoly.
Click to expand...
This is why we cannot trust anything they say. Why anyone would listen to anti-NN spiel coming from a company who has already shown their cards and proven to manipulate the system is beyond me. Look at what they did with regulation present, now imagine what they'll do without it lol.
 
nysmo said:
This is why we cannot trust anything they say. Why anyone would listen to anti-NN spiel coming from a company who has already shown their cards and proven to manipulate the system is beyond me. Look at what they did with regulation present, now imagine what they'll do without it lol.
Click to expand...
Title 2 was only granted 2 years ago. They still enabled caps which is throttling and pushing people away from services.
Why would anyone allow them to continue raking people over coals and doing whatever they want to? You only get away from abusive companies by forcing competition and voting with your money. You don't have that choice and no amount of NN regulation will help that.
 
Gigus Fire said:
You only get away from abusive companies by forcing competition and voting with your money
Click to expand...
How are you going to vote with your money when Comcast can literally do whatever they want to stifle competition in an unregulated market?
 
haste. said:
What??????? Of course you are voting for the candidates cabinet!!! That's the most asinine justification I have ever heard for making a poor decision with your vote. The cabinet is put in place to follow the directive of the candidate. Smfh if this is the future of the US electorate...
Click to expand...
Simmer down forum warrior with strong assumptions and an axe to grind. The cabinet is fluid with some carry over from the previous President. Though not chairman, did you know Obama nominated him to the FCC?
 
nysmo said:
How are you going to vote with your money when Comcast can literally do whatever they want to stifle competition in an unregulated market?
Click to expand...
Municipality ISPs, invite google fiber, create startups once people get fed up with their service.
There are no good overnight options, but as long as you allow abusive monopolies to persist because "Eh, they're awful but it's still not to the point where we need to do something" then you're enabling that kind of behavior.
Once competition is in place, you can basically kill them off.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Municipality ISPs, invite google fiber, create startups once people get fed up with their service.
There are no good overnight options, but as long as you allow abusive monopolies to persist because "Eh, they're awful but it's still not to the point where we need to do something" then you're enabling that kind of behavior.
Once competition is in place, you can basically kill them off.
Click to expand...
Can't get municipality IPS's if they are blocked by large corps.......I know my town can't afford to go to court to fight to get their own IPS out here.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Can't get municipality IPS's if they are blocked by large corps.......I know my town can't afford to go to court to fight to get their own IPS out here.
Click to expand...
Start a coop, it's the same thing as a municipality ISP except privately owned by the citizens.
Push it up to the state to pass laws allowing it. Start pushing the state to look into filing Sherman act type laws against them.
It all takes time, but it can be done in a way that will destroy the stranglehold that the large corps currently have.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Start a coop, it's the same thing as a municipality ISP except privately owned by the citizens.
Push it up to the state to pass laws allowing it. Start pushing the state to look into filing Sherman act type laws against them.
It all takes time, but it can be done in a way that will destroy the stranglehold that the large corps currently have.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a nice fantasy. I'm sure this is why Comcast is trying to repeal NN so badly, to invite competition to break their stranglehold on the region.
 
SecretStash said:
Simmer down forum warrior with strong assumptions and an axe to grind. The cabinet is fluid with some carry over from the previous President. Though not chairman, did you know Obama nominated him to the FCC?
Click to expand...

Apparently it is tradition for FCC commissioners to have 2 out of 3 seats be picked by the minority party, since legally there can only be 3 commissioners of the same party in the commission. So people asserting some bi-partisan consensus or Obama (progressive savior appointed NN killer) on NN or Title II are wrong.
 
nysmo said:
Sounds like a nice fantasy. I'm sure this is why Comcast is trying to repeal NN so badly, to invite competition to break their stranglehold on the region.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it's because they want to nickle and dime everyone on existing plans by trying to throttle/slow down and cap even harder.
NN doesn't save you from any of this because there are loopholes. Do Comcast caps still exist with NN?
It's not a fantasy. Things need to get worse before they get better. Right now people hate comcast but they still put up with them because at the end of the day they do provide internet that works.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, look what happened to atlanta when google fiber came to down. Comcast fought them hard but in the end they were forced to compete with google fiber. You can't get gigabit on comcast for 80$ a month unless you live in areas where google fiber is. Also surprisingly no caps in that area as well. If you live outside the area, gigabit is 150-300$ a month and comes with a 300 gig cap unless you pay like 50$ more a month.

In places where comcast has a monopoly you have the worst prices and the worst service and no title 2 regulation is ever going to improve that.
 
nysmo said:
Sounds like a nice fantasy. I'm sure this is why Comcast is trying to repeal NN so badly, to invite competition to break their stranglehold on the region.
Click to expand...

We did it. We kicked both AT&T and Charter to the curb and started our own coop in my neighborhood. It works. Takes time, but it can be done, It is not the fastest, as we voted to limit it to 20Mb/s up and down, for each connection, at $35.00/month. But as it grows, we intend to raise the speed.

We were also fortunte to have a core group of network engineers living in our neighborhood who knew what they were doing.
 
SecretStash said:
Simmer down forum warrior with strong assumptions and an axe to grind. The cabinet is fluid with some carry over from the previous President. Though not chairman, did you know Obama nominated him to the FCC?
Click to expand...
Sure the question marks were a bit much, but to somehow believe your vote doesn't have anything to do with the president's cabinet appointees is silly. Twist however you want. And as to forum warrior - be the same in person.

And yes I did know that he began his political career under Obama. Not sure what that has to do with anything, he wasn't chairman and killing Net Neutrality. More twisting. Refer to SighTurtle's response to yours.
 
Last edited:
Gigus Fire said:
In places where comcast has a monopoly you have the worst prices and the worst service and no title 2 regulation is ever going to improve that.
Click to expand...
This is not a discussion about pricing or quality of service. NN aims to prevent traffic discrimination, thats what we're worried about.

And yes it took a juggernaut like Google to really shake things up, the question is if left to battle Comcast without pesky gov't intervention could they win? Could they deploy across the entire country? Is that even their aim? All I know is if Comcast was able to strongarm Google WITH regulation in place, what are they capable of without it?
 
SecretStash said:
Simmer down forum warrior with strong assumptions and an axe to grind. The cabinet is fluid with some carry over from the previous President. Though not chairman, did you know Obama nominated him to the FCC?
Click to expand...

Yes.

"In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai

But he wasn't in charge. You don't nominate the Parrot to be captain on a pirate ship just 'cuz it's there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top