FCC Chairman Changes Tune On Net Neutrality Again

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The way this guy changes his story all the time, how can we believe anything he says? Well, at least he has a bright future in politics after his stint at the FCC.

"Those of you who oppose Net neutrality might feel like a celebration was in order," he said. "Reports that we are gutting the Open Internet rules are incorrect. I am here to say wait a minute. Put away the party hats. The Open Internet rules will be tough, enforceable, and, with the concurrence of my colleagues, in place with dispatch."
Click to expand...
 
of course he changed his tune, because he quickly realized that people aren't as gullible as he thought and didn't buy the "we won't let them throttle, we'll just let them make other stuff faster" line.
 
He is basically saying if the companies abuse the "fast lane" system, he will use Title II and things will be ok.

So why not use Title II in the first place? wtf.
 
He probably has a yacht payment coming due, so he's shaking the free-speech tree .. Err, I mean money tree. Sorry, I was using the SCOTUS spellchecker.
 
"No, you guys are misunderstanding what we're trying to do. It's actually really good and if you understood it better then you would like it too. I'll go into more detail at a later date and I promise you'll be super happy with it but please stop moving against us until then."

It sounds like he legitimately thinks having a normal lane and a fast lane is not the same as a slow lane and a fast lane.
 
i'm shocked, SHOCKED that the FCC has to backpedal on this issue ;)

Our infrastructure is so very screwy, from water and electric all the way to internet. I guess I'm thankful it works at all!
 
Paying for road usage is lame anyways it's anti-american. I hate it every time i travel to the east coast so many toll roads and lanes and the roads aren't any better they are just shortcuts that easily could have been paid for and maintained to the same level by tax payers. Adding a middleman only increases the price as adding middlemen always do. Only use of middlemen is to absorb blows in the market and protect against manufactures exploiting their control over a region. Roads need none of that so it's just costing me more. It acts as a disincentive to travel which is very much against american culture. Same with the internet, except now the ones charging a toll is the same one selling you the product so it might as well be ford and gm owning the toll roads.
 
He's engaging in double-talk, which is a form of obfuscation. He's not backing down at all.

The anti-Net Neutrality rules are definitely going to be put into place, IMO.
 
Reminds me of this:
"Can I have a medium diet coke?"
"Do you want the medium size or the middle size?"
"What's the difference?"
"Well, we have three sizes - medium, large and jumbo."
"What happened to the small?"
"There is no small. Small's medium."
"What's medium?"
"Medium's large and large is jumbo."
"Okay, give me the large."
"That's medium."
"Right. Can I have a small popcorn?"
"There is no small. Child-size is small."
"What's medium?"
"Adult."
"Do adults ever order the child-size?"
"Not usually."
"Okay, give me the adult."
"Do you want butter?"
"Is it real butter?"
"It's butter flavoring."
"What is it made of?"
"It's yellow."
Click to expand...
 
Pretty much doing the same thing his boss always does. Lies!!
 
He didn't change his tune at all, this is still saying "ok you can do what you want buddy, but don't do anything I wouldn't do right? right? <nudge nudge>"

A toothless comment, the guy's words are hollow and his actions speak of his corrupt intentions.
 
I expected a better fake out like a complicated ruling that superficially appears to protect net neutrality but with buried loopholes that rendered it useless.

I'm disappointed in a way.
 
Second, he said the FCC is not allowing broadband providers to "force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service."

"Let me be clear," he said. "If someone acts to divide the Internet between haves and have-nots, we will use every power at our disposal to stop it."
Click to expand...
Huh?

It wasn't users being forced into slow lanes, it was providers who couldn't or wouldn't play ISP extortion fees.
 
Spidey329 said:
He probably has a yacht payment coming due, so he's shaking the free-speech tree .. Err, I mean money tree. Sorry, I was using the SCOTUS spellchecker.
Click to expand...

He's thick in the industry. Its the person(s) who put him there that are getting the checks, he's probably the one probably writing the checks.
 
Steve said:
The way this guy changes his story all the time, how can we believe anything he says? Well, at least he has a bright future in politics after his stint at the FCC.
Click to expand...
An ex-lobbyist for cable and wireless companies is great for the common good of the FCC.
 
teh_chem said:
An ex-lobbyist for cable and wireless companies is great for the common good of the FCC.
Click to expand...

He's definitely great for the common good of the monied interests that run the telecommunications industry.

In the current regulatory climate I do not see an alternative to his approach emerging. This is what happens when we put an unaccountable bureaucracy in place to manage important aspects of our society/economy. Sadly, our elected officials have proven no better in recent history at actually representing the wishes of their constituencies, unless those constituencies have serious financial backing.
 
Maximus825 said:
It sounds like he legitimately thinks having a normal lane and a fast lane is not the same as a slow lane and a fast lane.
Click to expand...

You are just a pessimist. By the time it's implemented it will be an ultra fast lane and a hyperspeed lane.
 
Net Neutrality sucks. Here, I said it.

If I only use the Internet for light stuff, why should I pay the same thing that the guy who is downloading the entire Steam library?
 
cdr_74_premium said:
Net Neutrality sucks. Here, I said it.

If I only use the Internet for light stuff, why should I pay the same thing that the guy who is downloading the entire Steam library?
Click to expand...

Net neutrality, in this situation, isn't about end users paying the same or different on a per content basis. It's basically allowing ISP's to limit access to content as they wish. Light or heavy users aside, you should have equal and unrestricted access to region-legal content, and your ISP shouldn't be sanctioned to change how you can access that content.
 
You do have equal access. You use your dollars to get it.

Everyone has equal access to yachts, they use their dollars to get them. Dollars don't discriminate.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
You do have equal access. You use your dollars to get it.

Everyone has equal access to yachts, they use their dollars to get them. Dollars don't discriminate.
Click to expand...
That's fine and dandy until you consider the regional monopolies that municipalities gave to the entities that originally laid down the copper. How do you vote with your dollars if you have no alternative providers?
 
Thats the problem.

All we're doing it passing legislation to fix other legislation to fix other legislation to fix other legislation.

I think I've found the problem.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
Net Neutrality sucks. Here, I said it.

If I only use the Internet for light stuff, why should I pay the same thing that the guy who is downloading the entire Steam library?
Click to expand...
That's different than what is being discussed.

I'm fine with my ISP scaling charges based on my use.

The problem is they have already sqeezed the consumer stone as much as they can. Now they are squeezing content hosters for delivering the same content I paid them to deliver to me. Their costs will be passed on to me. So they found a way to charge me more in the long run than direct pricing will let them do.

And that's if they are objective. If they aren't they can kill other companies for alterior motives. They can make a Netflix prohibitive enough to kill it and help end the cable cutting threat.

And scaling isn't quite the issue, anyway. You're paying not just for bandwidth but hardware. Cable to your House, Bookkeeping allocating you an IP, Billing costs. Much of that is the Cost just being connected. So the first byte is the most expensive. And billing purely per byte would also be unfair
 
You do have equal access. You use your dollars to get it.

Everyone has equal access to yachts, they use their dollars to get them. Dollars don't discriminate.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of shit.
 
Any regulation that mandates deviation from equilibrium prices is despotic and coercive.

Dollars do not discriminate.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Thats the problem.

All we're doing it passing legislation to fix other legislation to fix other legislation to fix other legislation.

I think I've found the problem.
Click to expand...
This situation is not passing legislation to fix other legislation to fix other legislation, etc. It's the newly-appointed FCC chairperson, a previous cable company lobbyist, cashing the check that telecoms wrote in order to secure the way they want things to be operated. This piece of legislation is not fixing any other piece of legislation. It's validating the unfair (non-neutral) handling of data bits passing through an ISP network. This legislation is not fixing a goddamn thing. It's a step backwards.

Don't get me wrong; I think the government should stay out of the internet in general, except for the fact that access to the network right now is not entirely fair, per the regional monopolies/oligopolies of ISP's I mentioned before.
 
Semantics said:
Paying for road usage is lame anyways it's anti-american. ... It acts as a disincentive to travel which is very much against american culture.
Click to expand...

At the same time, it's also taxing those who use it specifically, rather than everyone as a whole.

Not necessarily agreeing with the practice, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top