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

If NN had bipartisan support this wouldn't be an issue. Democrats want to regulate the internet and Republicans like to keep regulation limited to promote private investment and innovation.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
If NN had bipartisan support this wouldn't be an issue. Democrats want to regulate the internet and Republicans like to keep regulation limited to promote private investment and innovation.
Click to expand...

That's too simplistic. Republicans also like to use regulation, or de-regulation, to allow big business to lock in advantage. Breaking up the Bells and making phone service common carrier definitely was a regulation, but one that promoted private investment and innovation.
 
nysmo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Prices and quality of service is directly tied to NN what if scenarios when it's repealed. You can't separate one without the other. With competition NN like rules don't need to be enforced because the consumer will do that for you.

There are smaller examples of how competition shook the industry. Here's one on this topic: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpk77/chattanooga-gigabit-fiber-network
 
It gets better: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ications-in-light-of-this-obscure-court-case/

A company that provides Internet access, such as AT&T, could seek an exemption from FTC net neutrality enforcement by pointing to its voice business and claiming common carrier status under the ruling. At the same time, the ruling could limit AT&T's net neutrality liability under the FCC, because the repeal of the net neutrality rules would mean the FCC would no longer recognize AT&T's broadband business as one that can be regulated like a telecommunications carrier.
Click to expand...

Basically if this court case rules in AT&Ts favor, AT&T can use it's voice business' status as a common carrier as an umbrella for ALL of its businesses to be exempt from the FTC; while at the same time saying that since AT&Ts broadband business isn't a common carrier, the FCC can't hear net neutrality cases against it.
 
Megalith said:
A popular claim by telecoms is that net neutrality rules are somehow preventing people who are sick or disabled from gaining access to essential medical services they need to survive. While the FCC boss agrees, it is far from the truth. Their argument is that if net neutrality is allowed, Verizon and others won't be able to offer priority services that are "necessary" for such groups.

Net neutrality rules clearly exempt medical services from the ban on uncompetitive paid prioritization, but Ajit Pai is claiming otherwise. “By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization—such as latency-sensitive telemedicine,” Pai said. “By replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors."
Click to expand...

huh? what "essential medical services"?? What the hell is Pai on about now? Pai and his ISP friends are arguing that net neutrality needs to die because ISPs can't fuck with access to medical services right now... and somehow killing NN and letting ISPs mess with access to those services is going to improve access to those services? How? All they are going to do is charge those "sick and disabled" customers /more/ to access their "essential medical services" and we all know that people that may be struggling financially would just love to be charged more money from their ISP which should just be a fucking dumb pipe.

I must be a fucking idiot because Pai and his statement makes zero sense to me. Basically, it's not a problem now thanks to NN, but Pai's big idea is to make it a problem by getting rid of net neutrality and then try to solve the problem he created by trusting the ISPs to be good citizens?? hahahahahahah &*$&(#&()U@.
 
Gigus Fire said:
With competition NN like rules don't need to be enforced because the consumer will do that for you.
Click to expand...
Gigus Fire said:
Monopolies don't say anything about competition nor do they want competition.... I'm not quite sure how to process your statement.
Click to expand...
It means the consumer isnt going to do shit with the presence of a monopoly, otherwise monopolies wouldnt be such a problem and would get squashed by people "voting with their wallets"
 
nysmo said:
It means the consumer isnt going to do shit with the presence of a monopoly, otherwise monopolies wouldnt be such a problem and would get squashed by people "voting with their wallets"
Click to expand...

Can't vote with your wallet when there is no other option and the service is pretty much mandatory to having a basic life in any half decent town or any city.
 
Sure you can. We did it in our neighborhood. We started an Internet coop. It was not easy, but the end result is we get exactly what we want.

It is a cop-out to say you have no choice. There are always choices. Some are just harder than others.
 
BSmith said:
Sure you can. We did it in our neighborhood. We started an Internet coop. It was not easy, but the end result is we get exactly what we want.

It is a cop-out to say you have no choice. There are always choices. Some are just harder than others.
Click to expand...

That could be pretty hard and I would imagine takes a good deal of time and most importantly technical knowledge.

Edit: Just want to say, I like it, good on you, wish more people would do shit like this.
 
Last edited:
nysmo said:
It means the consumer isnt going to do shit with the presence of a monopoly, otherwise monopolies wouldnt be such a problem and would get squashed by people "voting with their wallets"
Click to expand...
I never stated that the consumer would do something about monopolies, i suggested that instead of laws regulating monopolies there should be laws which mandate competition and or break up monopolies.
Those are the kind of laws consumers should be pushing their governments to enact or enforce.
The other alternative is to add competition by a co-op, municipality ISP or even invite other companies (google fiber) or other ISP startups to start servicing the area.
 
Aireoth said:
That could be pretty hard and I would imagine takes a good deal of time and most importantly technical knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was hard. We started with a wireless solution at 2.5Mb/s/home, and grew it to now have a physical infrastructure running at 20Mb/s/home. Our neighborhood association stayed the course and executed the plan. A lot of the work was done by the people in the neighborhood. We now have over 900 homes on our network. All happy campers.

We have planned growth to reach 50Mb/s in a couple of years.
 
I just looked and found someone that services my county but not my city.. if that makes any damn sense. :( I want off of Spectrum/FIOS wannabe company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top